20:01:34 <flaper87> #startmeeting tc
20:01:35 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug  9 20:01:34 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is flaper87. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:35 <flaper87> Hello everyone!
20:01:36 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:01:37 <flaper87> As usual, you can find today's agenda here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda
20:01:40 <flaper87> Let's start with a few "easy" ones
20:01:40 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:01:41 <flaper87> #topic Clarify that cycle-trailing projects follow the milestone deadlines
20:01:43 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/348501
20:01:44 <mordred> o/
20:01:47 <mtreinish> ~o/
20:01:49 <flaper87> AJaeger: I got this
20:01:59 <flaper87> #topic Refresh I18n ATC list
20:02:00 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/351480
20:02:06 <notmorgan> flaper87: you can remove me from the ping list
20:02:15 <flaper87> notmorgan: yup
20:02:16 <notmorgan> flaper87: as of today, I'm no longer part of the TC.
20:02:25 <russellb> notmorgan: thanks again for your service :)
20:02:32 <flaper87> notmorgan: thanks for your service
20:02:38 * flaper87 will update the governance repo
20:02:53 <flaper87> ok, this one has majority already
20:02:55 <annegentle_> notmorgan: sorry to see you go, thanks for the support and service
20:02:58 <flaper87> any reason why this shouldn't be merged ?
20:03:08 <annegentle_> flaper87: looks good to me
20:03:30 <johnthetubaguy> we could try wait for consensus instead, just for giggles, but otherwise, I am happy
20:03:52 <flaper87> now, onto the one I skipped after my failed w/ my copy/paste to start the meeting
20:03:52 <dims> +1
20:03:53 <annegentle_> johnthetubaguy: 9 is pretty darn close :)
20:03:58 <flaper87> #topic Clarify that cycle-trailing projects follow the milestone deadlines
20:03:59 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/348501
20:04:15 <flaper87> This one has 8 votes already
20:04:29 <flaper87> that's majority already.
20:04:35 <flaper87> Any reason why this shouldn't be merged?
20:04:42 <dhellmann> does anyone have any other questions about that one?
20:04:53 <annegentle_> can't think of one myself
20:05:11 * flaper87 is good with it
20:05:45 <flaper87> ok, sold... I guess
20:05:59 <flaper87> Now, onto more heated topics
20:06:11 <flaper87> #topic Replacing Morgan's seat
20:06:13 <flaper87> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2016-August/001233.html, including various proposals
20:06:15 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/351104 (flaper87)
20:06:17 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/351295 (dhellmann)
20:06:19 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/351427 (anteaya)
20:06:23 <flaper87> There are several proposals. The first one proposes using the next closest election to elect all the missing seats. If 1 or more vacants would open before the election, those would be added to the number of seats up for election.
20:06:25 <flaper87> The second proposal is to adopt the same model as the foundation and it proposes three different scenarios: 1) Vacancy openned less than 4 weeks before the election and the seat will be contested, then nothing is done till the election. 2)  Vacancy openned less than 4 weeks before the election and the seat will not be contested, then candidates that don't win a seat would be asked if they want to
20:06:26 <flaper87> serve 3) Vacancy opens more than 4 weeks before the election, the TC consults the last results.
20:06:28 <flaper87> The third proposal is to have by-elections as soon as the vacancies open, regardless what time in the cycle we're at.
20:06:30 <flaper87> #link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-election
20:06:32 <flaper87> I'm fine with either the first or the third option, to be honest. The 2 first points of the second option are fine. The third one is the one that doesn't sit well with me. The main reason is that if it happens too late in the cycle, then I believe we'd be pulling in someone in the TC that could loose to others anyway.
20:06:34 <flaper87> The way the community and its members evolve in the cycle is really hard to predict, which is why I'd prefer to leave it up for elections either to the closest election or a by-election.
20:06:36 * flaper87 hopes that summarizes the three proposals
20:06:53 <flaper87> (fairly summarizes would be better)
20:07:09 <anteaya> flaper87: the third proposal is not by-election as soon as the vacany is open
20:07:23 <flaper87> anteaya: mind clarifying?
20:07:25 <flaper87> anteaya: sorry about that
20:07:41 <anteaya> the third proposal is by-election, timing and details to be determined based on circumstances
20:08:02 <flaper87> anteaya: thanks! Sorry for not summarizing it well  :)
20:08:03 <dhellmann> it's reasonable to expect that we would want to do it relatively quickly, but it's not required
20:08:12 <anteaya> dhellmann: right
20:08:13 <mugsie> anteaya: but always holding a by-election?
20:08:18 <anteaya> mugsie: yes
20:08:24 <mugsie> OK.
20:08:26 <anteaya> by-election could be held with other election
20:08:47 <anteaya> or if vacancy occurs at christmas the electon could be held when it makes sense to do so
20:08:51 <annegentle_> anteaya: other election such as a PTL election? Or along with the already-scheduled TC election?
20:08:59 <anteaya> annegentle_: either
20:09:04 <anteaya> whatever makes sense
20:09:09 <annegentle_> anteaya: check, thanks for clarifying.
20:09:17 <anteaya> annegentle_: thanks for asking
20:09:28 <mordred> there are times when I wish we could CIVS a set of competing specs
20:09:34 <sdague> my preference is dhellmann's proposal, which aligns with how the board does it more or less. It feels to me like 5 month old results are still pretty fresh in the community given our current turn over rate.
20:09:57 <dims> i agree with sdague and dhellmann
20:09:59 <johnthetubaguy> so I am currently preferring option 2, because it saves lots of people a lot of time, and still seems to respect the will of the voters
20:10:02 <flaper87> sdague: 5 months old results is exactly what doesn't sit well with me
20:10:13 <mugsie> flaper87: no?
20:10:20 <russellb> the board doesn't actually specify "consult last results"
20:10:26 <flaper87> Things change, people come/go, opinions evolve, etc
20:10:30 <russellb> it's just up to the individual directors to appoint, and in practice, that's how they've done it so far
20:10:31 <sdague> russellb: that's why I said "more or less"
20:10:33 <russellb> but it's not coded that way
20:10:39 <thingee> I'm ok with the 5 month old results. Not ok with an election to happen and assume voters will be around.
20:10:40 <russellb> the flexibility is nice
20:10:47 <mugsie> its a pretty short period of time.
20:10:50 <annegentle_> I feel / sense that the 4 week window one is best for a bunch of groups; the electorate, the election officials not having to do a by-election on-demand, and the TC members themselves feeling like there's a process for when you just can't finish your term.
20:10:57 <anteaya> thingee: that is why the timing is not set in the patch
20:11:00 <sdague> russellb: to be fair, I'd also be fine with more flexibility in there as well
20:11:01 <edleafe> flaper87: we elect people for a full year; I doubt that someone who was voted for last election isn't desireable 5 months hence
20:11:03 * annegentle_ still needs to vote
20:11:09 <dhellmann> russellb : I would also be ok with a proposal that said it that way, but some other folks seemed to want the details written down
20:11:13 <flaper87> thingee: fwiw, my proposal says we could elect the open sits on the next closest election. Not saying it's better, though
20:11:15 <anteaya> thingee: so the timing can be selected to ensure voters are around
20:11:20 <johnthetubaguy> thingee: good point, we don't have the best turn out anyways, a by-election is likely much worse
20:11:39 <flaper87> edleafe: well, if that person won already, there's not much to do. If that person didn't win, then there is
20:11:41 <sdague> johnthetubaguy / thingee ++
20:11:45 <thingee> anteaya: that's hard to figure though
20:11:48 <annegentle_> oh, and I still am confused on one point... just a sec.
20:12:01 <thingee> anteaya: we already have problems with usual scheduled elections
20:12:06 <anteaya> thingee: we can look at email and gerrit activity
20:12:11 <edleafe> flaper87: but "won" is a relative term in CIVS
20:12:15 <anteaya> thingee: yes we do, no argument there
20:12:24 <annegentle_> so do we need the wording from https://review.openstack.org/351104 so that the four-week proposal works (https://review.openstack.org/351295)? They are independent, right?
20:12:25 <flaper87> edleafe: yeah yeah, made it into the N seats up for election
20:12:27 <sdague> and picking voting times then becomes another extra effort
20:12:28 <flaper87> :P
20:12:38 <anteaya> but I think we are futher ahead to have more elections, when warrented, not fewer
20:12:41 <thingee> sdague: right
20:12:54 <dhellmann> anteaya : flaper87's proposal and mine are mutually exclusive. We don't want both of them.
20:12:57 <amrith> flaper87, dhellmann I think the compromise between the three proposals is my Aug 8, 6:43am comment. with threshold = 4 weeks.
20:13:01 <annegentle_> dhellmann: ok
20:13:05 <thingee> going down a list of previous voted people is less effort imo
20:13:13 <dhellmann> oops, meant that for annegentle_ , tab-complete-fail
20:13:15 * thingee is lazy
20:13:24 <anteaya> thingee: yes it is less effort
20:13:27 <annegentle_> dhellmann: happens all the time right anteaya ? :)
20:13:35 <anteaya> no question about how much effort it is
20:13:40 <anteaya> I'm talking about value
20:13:46 <anteaya> and doing right by the electorate
20:13:58 <sdague> given the historical drift of candidates on the TC list (who ranked where cycle after cycle), I think that a special election is largely going to give us the same results as just pulling from the last election, except with a ton of extra work
20:14:00 <anteaya> annegentle_: all the time
20:14:08 <edleafe> vacancies are filled with either appointment or re-vote. Picking from previous results is just one way to handle an appointed replacement
20:14:17 <thingee> Looking at the list now of the next people in-line, are these people still active and participating?
20:14:27 <dhellmann> amrith : I don't think civs results in ties, does it?
20:14:31 <thingee> would anyone have a problem with them?
20:14:36 <anteaya> dhellmann: it can
20:14:41 * flaper87 doesn't want special elections but a simple election on the closest one
20:14:44 <amrith> dhellmann, let me check. I think I looked it up and found that it could.
20:14:45 <anteaya> dhellmann: but we have rules for tie breaking
20:14:56 <anteaya> dhellmann: we just have never had to invoke them
20:15:00 <dhellmann> k
20:15:20 <edleafe> thingee: that's the vetting process. If they aren't active, or would upset affiliation, move on to the next in line
20:15:24 <annegentle_> thingee: yeah I wondered if we had polled the people next on the list yet...
20:15:32 <dhellmann> sdague : I think you're probably right.
20:15:36 <sdague> thingee: they mostly all seem active to me, and I wouldn't have a problem going down that list in order
20:15:36 <edleafe> thingee: or if they are simply no longer interested
20:15:46 <thingee> edleafe: +1
20:15:47 <anteaya> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TieBreaking
20:15:48 <russellb> anyone have a link handy to the last TC election results?
20:15:54 <sdague> yeh, one sec
20:15:58 <sdague> http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_fef5cc22eb3dc27a
20:16:07 <sdague> dtroyer would be the fix ask
20:16:15 <johnthetubaguy> just to be clear, did we rule out the not filling the seat until its next up for election approach?
20:16:30 <thingee> don't think anyone would be upset with dtroyer :)
20:16:34 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : we did not explicitly decide that.
20:16:36 <sdague> then david-lyle, sdake, anteaya, cdent (in that order)
20:16:37 <amrith> dhellmann, anteaya found the link I was loking for; thanks anteaya
20:16:39 <russellb> thingee: truth
20:16:39 <anteaya> johnthetubaguy: that would leave the seat vacant until next north american spring
20:16:46 <johnthetubaguy> anteaya: yes
20:16:52 <notmorgan> johnthetubaguy: my seat would be up in spring.
20:16:54 <anteaya> amrith: welcome
20:17:03 <notmorgan> long time w/ an unfilled seat.
20:17:06 <anteaya> johnthetubaguy: I didn't see that proposal up for discussion, no
20:17:07 <dims> All 4 algorithms end up with same result dtroyer
20:17:26 <anteaya> dims: this time
20:17:28 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : you raise a good point, and I think we should at least agree that we want to fill the seat if there's some minimum amount of time left.
20:17:37 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : my proposed minimum is 1 month
20:17:37 <dims> anteaya : y
20:17:57 <notmorgan> dhellmann: i think your review specified 4wks, i would go with that over 1 month
20:18:05 <notmorgan> dhellmann: since months vary in length
20:18:05 <dhellmann> notmorgan : tomato, tomato
20:18:09 <anteaya> and the rules we are creating are for filling the seat in an uncontesed way even if someone has an issue with the candidate
20:18:10 <flaper87> dhellmann: the only reason I think we must do that is because we don't have a consensus model for reaching agreement
20:18:11 <notmorgan> dhellmann: precision :P
20:18:16 <flaper87> that being filling up the seat
20:18:21 <mtreinish> dhellmann: yeah, I think that was a good minimum
20:18:29 <flaper87> otherwise we could live with an empty seat until the next election
20:18:36 <sdague> yeh, 4 weeks seems like a very reasonable time frame
20:18:40 <dims> either works for me 4 weeks or 1 month
20:18:43 <johnthetubaguy> dhellmann: yeah, that seems a good minimum, 4 weeks
20:18:50 <annegentle_> #link http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_fef5cc22eb3dc27a
20:18:56 <dhellmann> flaper87 : that's a separate discussion, but sure
20:19:06 <notmorgan> flaper87: to be fair, I could have also just disappeared and it would be the net effect of an empty seat until next election it was up
20:19:18 <dhellmann> notmorgan : we would have noticed
20:19:24 <flaper87> notmorgan: sure, but we would have noticed
20:19:25 <annegentle_> dhellmann: what was an exercise in findability for me was "when do we hold TC elections"
20:19:27 <dhellmann> are we at least agreed on the 4 week question?
20:19:28 <anteaya> notmorgan: well then we would have had the disappearing leader issue again
20:19:44 <dims> +1 on 4 weeks dhellmann
20:19:48 <notmorgan> dhellmann: right, but there was no handling of that here, and has the same result.
20:19:49 <annegentle_> answer: 5 weeks before the Summit
20:19:50 <anteaya> annegentle_: it is in the charter
20:19:54 <dhellmann> http://releases.openstack.org/newton/schedule.html
20:20:00 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh, seems like
20:20:14 <flaper87> dhellmann: I'm not happy with it, tbh. 5 months old results don't sit well with be but most people seem to be happy with 4 weeks
20:20:18 <flaper87> so, I'll live by it
20:20:19 <notmorgan> anyway. sorry. I'm going back afk and getting food. /me ducks out of this convo
20:20:27 <dhellmann> flaper87: yeah, one question at a time: so you're ok with 4 weeks?
20:21:03 <flaper87> dhellmann: no, I meant to say I'm not ok with 4 weeks. Perhaps we could make the threshold bigger: 8 weeks ?
20:21:23 <dhellmann> flaper87 : so you're saying if I resign 8 weeks before the end of my term, you would not replace me until the next election?
20:21:31 <flaper87> dhellmann: yes
20:21:39 <dhellmann> that's not the direction I expected you to go
20:21:40 <anteaya> annegentle_: The election is held 3 weeks prior
20:21:42 <sdague> that seems long for me
20:21:42 <anteaya> to each design summit, with nominations due 4 weeks prior to the summit and
20:21:44 <dims> too long imho
20:21:44 <anteaya> elections held open for no less than five business days.
20:21:48 <dhellmann> why would you be willing to wait so long?
20:21:53 <annegentle_> anteaya: oh I'd better find the other source I found.
20:21:56 <anteaya> annegentle_: #link http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/charter.rst
20:22:02 <edleafe> dhellmann: 8 weeks before the next election, or the end of your term?
20:22:11 <anteaya> annegentle_: under Election for TC seats
20:22:19 <dhellmann> edleafe : either, really
20:22:22 <flaper87> dhellmann: the reason is that I don't feel ok with using a 5months old results to pick someone that will fill the remaining 7 months of the person leaving
20:22:25 <anteaya> annegentle_: the only doc that trumps the charter is the foundation by-laws
20:22:38 <dhellmann> edleafe : the question is how long do we want to allow an empty seat
20:23:00 <sdague> so, I guess the question we should figure out, is whether anyone objects besides flaper87 ? Because we're +6 on dhellmann's proposal right now
20:23:16 <edleafe> dhellmann: exactly. The next election keeps that vacancy short
20:24:00 <dhellmann> edleafe : I think I'm not being clear, so I'm just going to stop offering alternatives. Let's pick one of the two that are written up.
20:24:09 <dhellmann> sorry, 3
20:24:17 <edleafe> dhellmann: :)
20:24:33 <edleafe> I think 8 weeks is much too long
20:24:33 <sdague> dhellmann: agreed, we don't need to spend from now until the next election discussing how to fill an empty seat :)
20:24:44 <flaper87> Ok, there are 7 votes on dhellmann review
20:24:51 <flaper87> I guess we should go w/ that one
20:24:54 <johnthetubaguy> Honestly, I don't think running a new by-election gains enough to justify the effort of all those nominations, voting, etc, etc
20:24:54 <mordred> sdague: I disagree
20:25:18 <dhellmann> flaper87: this is a sort of important one, so I'd like to get most everyone on board one way or the other if we can
20:25:28 <fungi> in the past we have had a tc election where some of the seats were for a one-year term and some for a half-year term, when bootstrapping the current committee size
20:25:37 <anteaya> yeah charter changes aren't simple majority
20:25:38 <annegentle_> flaper87: only if you can support it. We can work towards consensus here.
20:25:43 <russellb> dhellmann: would be good to know if the others are abstain / -1 / neutral ...
20:25:54 <flaper87> dhellmann: I'm with your proposal. I'm not happy with the 4 weeks but I'm willing to live by it
20:25:55 <dhellmann> fungi : yeah, that's more or less what I based my proposal on.
20:25:56 <fungi> so there is precedent for a seat in an election being for a partial term
20:25:57 <sdague> dhellmann: right, I'd like to have everyone on the TC register here
20:26:14 <annegentle_> only thing the charter says is, "After the initial election, the elections for the Technical Committee shall be held at least every six months."
20:26:16 * flaper87 is not trying to rush the discussion but rather trying to reach consensus
20:26:16 <sdague> I don't want to move forward on simple majority
20:26:20 <annegentle_> #link https://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/
20:26:21 <johnthetubaguy> +1 for getting everyones vote on this
20:26:23 <dhellmann> flaper87 : ok. I'm willing to discuss changing that, maybe as a separate thing next week?
20:26:28 <flaper87> sdague: that is not what I said, fwiw
20:26:30 <russellb> maybe quick poll of whoever hasn't voted yet?
20:26:33 <flaper87> dhellmann: sounds perfect
20:26:34 <annegentle_> yeah I'm also fine with waiting
20:26:39 <dhellmann> flaper87 : I picked what seemed like a pragmatic number but I'm not wedded to it
20:26:52 <anteaya> Amendments to this Technical Committee charter shall be proposed in a special
20:26:54 <anteaya> motion, which needs to be approved by the affirmative vote of at least
20:26:56 <anteaya> two-thirds of the total number of TC members (rounded up: in a 13-member
20:26:58 <mtreinish> russellb: assuming they're around
20:26:58 <anteaya> committee that means a minimum of 9 approvers).
20:27:06 <sdake> sdague fwiw, I am still available for TC seat filling if necessary -but sounds like dtroyer using the 4 algos gets the seat.
20:27:06 <russellb> mtreinish: yup.
20:27:08 <sdake> ttyl )
20:27:19 <anteaya> #link http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/charter.rst under Ammendment
20:27:23 <sdake> :) i mean to say
20:27:46 <dims> sdake ack :)
20:28:00 <annegentle_> sdake: thanks, good to know
20:28:01 <sdague> so ttx is out, dhellmann hasn't voted, who is the missing vote on there?
20:28:04 <anteaya> charter changes need 9 votes
20:28:23 <russellb> notmorgan hasn't voted, heh
20:28:28 <annegentle_> russellb: right :)
20:28:35 <flaper87> we have 12 votes
20:28:36 <notmorgan> i am not a member of the TC, I do not get to vote
20:28:36 <dims> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351295/
20:28:39 <thingee> ttx did vote +1 at one point
20:28:43 <flaper87> and one is dhellmann's on his own patch
20:28:43 <notmorgan> i officially stepped down effective today
20:28:44 <thingee> just not the current patch :)
20:28:47 <flaper87> which counts like a vote
20:28:48 <flaper87> :P
20:28:54 <sdague> mestery: ?
20:29:00 <russellb> notmorgan: i know, just joking ... were couting up the votes (or missing votes)
20:29:02 <notmorgan> email was sent to secretary@o.o confirming this.
20:29:08 <russellb> mestery is probably out, at openstack silicon valley
20:29:19 <dhellmann> flaper87 : I went ahead and registered my vote
20:29:25 <annegentle_> russellb: he's tweeting from there anyway :)
20:29:27 <flaper87> dhellmann: thanks
20:29:29 <flaper87> that helps
20:29:42 <flaper87> ok, we're missing ttx and mestery
20:29:49 <sdague> if we hold it open for 2 more days, think both of them will have a chance to weigh in?
20:29:52 <dhellmann> 10 is more than 2/3 of 12, right?
20:29:55 <flaper87> we can wait for those and address questions/concerns next week if there are more
20:29:55 <sdague> it is
20:30:03 <anteaya> dhellmann: you need 9 votes
20:30:03 <flaper87> but we should be fine
20:30:12 <annegentle_> dhellmann: it is but this is a good chance to practice consensus
20:30:15 <sdague> I just want to make sure people had the ability to voice an opinion
20:30:18 <dhellmann> annegentle_ : sure
20:30:31 <flaper87> So, Does anyone have concerns about dhellmann's proposal?
20:30:34 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351295/
20:30:40 <edleafe> anteaya: the TC is only 12 members as of today, so technically, 8 are needed
20:30:46 <flaper87> Any other questions about the process?
20:30:52 <flaper87> Any other questions about the requirements?
20:30:52 <dhellmann> alright, I'm fine leaving it open until next week. we should ask dtroyer to join us for the meeting.
20:31:07 <annegentle_> dhellmann: sounds good
20:31:08 <dtroyer> fwiw, I'm here
20:31:13 <amrith> edleafe, normally in the computation of vote margins, it is the size of the body, not the number currently present. so 9 is still required; IMHO
20:31:19 <dhellmann> dtroyer : I meant to make sure you were here next week :-)
20:31:21 <annegentle_> dtroyer: thanks for being here
20:31:28 <edleafe> amrith: the body is only 12
20:31:37 <dtroyer> dhellmann: roger
20:31:38 <amrith> no, the body is 13, 12 members.
20:31:41 <mugsie> amrith: the wording would indicate 12 memebers
20:31:42 <sdague> dtroyer: so, question, do you remain interested in serving on the TC?
20:31:50 <flaper87> we'll have to wait till ttx is back anyway. I don't have +W and It'd be great to have his opinion (and mestery's too)
20:31:58 <dhellmann> amrith : 10 is also > 2/3 of 13
20:31:58 <sdague> because if the answer is yes, that simplifies talking with folks down the list
20:32:00 <dtroyer> sdague: yes, I would happily fill the remaining term if asked
20:32:12 <sdague> ok, cool, so we have that data point in public
20:32:22 <dims> thanks dtroyer
20:32:33 <flaper87> dtroyer: danke
20:32:41 <sdague> ok, I move we leave voting open until ttx and mestery express a vote, or next meeting, whichever comes first
20:32:48 <sdague> and we move to next topic
20:32:49 <dhellmann> ++
20:32:52 <flaper87> sdague: just said that :P
20:33:01 <johnthetubaguy> ++
20:33:12 <dims> ++ flaper87 sdague
20:33:15 <amrith> dhellmann, you are correct. sorry; 9 or >
20:33:19 <dhellmann> flaper87 : as chair, will you ping both ttx and mestery in the mean time?
20:33:28 <flaper87> dhellmann: yup, on it
20:33:40 <flaper87> moving on
20:33:42 <flaper87> #topic Community-wide goals
20:33:43 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/349068
20:33:46 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/349069
20:33:48 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/349070
20:33:51 <flaper87> dhellmann: I'll let you summarize/introduce this one
20:34:03 <dhellmann> ok
20:34:18 <dhellmann> this is the write-up of the idea that we discussed the thursday of the training in ann arbor
20:34:40 <dhellmann> the idea is to be a little more active in encouraging the community to take some specific actions each cycle
20:35:00 <dhellmann> I've included 2 specific proposals from the list that we discussed as examples
20:35:26 <dhellmann> there has been a fair amount of concern about consequences for not following through on goals, but very little discussion of the specific goals proposed
20:35:42 <sdague> I think both goals are good small scoped ones
20:35:59 <thingee> sdague: +1
20:36:06 * flaper87 likes what's up there
20:36:08 <dhellmann> I'll try to summarize ttx's comments on the consequences by saying that failing to follow through is not an immediate trigger for being dropped, but it may be seen as part of a larger set of signals that a project does not really consider itself part of the community
20:36:20 <mordred> I also think that starting from a "hey everybody, let's all try to ..." is great. nobody has done it yet. might someone choose to not play ball? sure
20:36:23 <dhellmann> his wording on the mailing list is probably better
20:36:25 <sdague> good to test the process, mostly I've been thinking about how to use something similar to help drive the upgrades conversation
20:36:27 <mordred> and then yeah, ttx said that well
20:36:28 <annegentle_> dhellmann: are the two proposed the "typical" scope you'd expect?
20:36:34 <annegentle_> dhellmann: or are you ready for more to be proposed by others?
20:36:57 <annegentle_> sdague: yeah and I was thinking of something around api-ref now that I have the numbers and the nav is coming together.
20:37:03 <thingee> ttx's wording http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/100670.html
20:37:11 <dhellmann> annegentle_ : my sense is that we only want a couple of these each cycle, so I don't think we want more right now unless we reject one of these
20:37:14 <mugsie> mordred: sure - but I am not sure I would be happy top have this morph into "do this or leave" conversation
20:37:22 <annegentle_> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/100670.html
20:37:22 <sdague> annegentle_: right, we'd probably have done *this* for api-ref this cycle if we had this process
20:37:24 <mordred> mugsie: totally
20:37:31 <sdague> we kind of ad-hoced it
20:37:48 <dhellmann> as far as scope, we want things to be finished in a cycle, rather than being of indefinite length, and that's going to naturally limit the scope
20:37:52 <sdague> but, it would be a very reasonable 3rd thing to use this process this next cycle
20:37:53 <mugsie> which is why I think there needs to be more concrete wording about consequences
20:37:53 <flaper87> dhellmann: question: I don't remember if it was mentioned/discussed whether some of this goals would eventually become requirements for entrance to the big tent. I think I read new projects have 1 year to be compliant with some of these goals, is that right?
20:37:54 <dhellmann> large initiatives will need to be broken into phases
20:38:00 <mordred> mugsie: I think I'd rather just see people get excited about a few shared esprit-de-corps types of things - without us holding an axe over anyone's head
20:38:00 <annegentle_> dhellmann: ok, makes sense
20:38:17 <flaper87> For example, if all projects manage to migrate to py35, we might want to ask new projects to be py35 compliant
20:38:18 <dhellmann> flaper87 : I believe somewhere in that patch I say that all teams need to do the goals. that would apply to new teams, too.
20:38:19 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: I was just going to suggest we might want to add it still
20:38:24 <mugsie> mordred: yeah - but the ML has been hinting at it having consequences
20:38:31 <dhellmann> flaper87 : if we need to clarify that, we can work on language in another patch?
20:38:35 <thingee> mugsie: I don't really find it productive to speculate that there would be a goal agreed that would cause problems.
20:38:45 <annegentle_> dhellmann: Also, forgive me if I'm behind on the ML discussion: do we see these as themes for a release such as what the product group has discussed?
20:38:50 <flaper87> dhellmann: yup, sounds perfect. I;ve voted already
20:39:13 <dhellmann> annegentle_ : a bit more narrow, though ttx did mention that the foundation might use them as "look what we did" type messaging at summits
20:39:15 <johnthetubaguy> annegentle_: I think these goals are generally more specific
20:39:17 <mugsie> thingee: well, teams are differning sizes. A team might decide that actully writing docs this cycle is better for users, for example
20:39:17 <sdague> honestly, I really rather just think of this as information gathering and exposure
20:39:24 <mordred> mugsie: I tihnk thingee just said what I was thinking - hopefully these are all just putting words to things that are already on people's lists anyway
20:39:27 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: +1
20:39:47 <mordred> mugsie: and I think there's a difference in "we couldn't get to it" and "screw you guys, we're not doing it"
20:39:47 <mugsie> the current 2 are fine, nice small, and common sense
20:39:59 <sdague> because I think that we state some goals, ask people to work towards them, make sure we captures what's getting done, and it helps us all have a better picture of the state of openstack
20:40:00 <thingee> mordred: +1
20:40:03 <flaper87> I think this is a very good start for the community-goals effort
20:40:15 <thingee> flaper87: agreed, it has to start somewhere.
20:40:29 <annegentle_> I sorta read it as "replace the giant cross-project spec with smaller goals" -- is that an accurate assessment?
20:40:46 <thingee> annegentle_: I think specs will still exist as reference
20:40:59 <thingee> there is no replacing here
20:40:59 <dhellmann> annegentle_ : not really. by the time something is ready to be approved as a goal, I would expect the path to finishing it to be very clear already.
20:41:12 <johnthetubaguy> dhellmann: so I was kinda expecting us to merge the goals post summit, but I guess this is us going to the summit with some merged ideas to spark the conversation?
20:41:19 <dhellmann> for example, one of the other things discussed was moving all projects so they can be deployed behind apache
20:41:20 <thingee> dhellmann: +1
20:41:21 <sdague> this feels more about execution support
20:41:27 <flaper87> johnthetubaguy: yeah
20:41:29 <dhellmann> figuring out how to do that is going to require work up front
20:41:31 <annegentle_> ok that's useful thanks dhellmann thingee
20:42:06 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : right, we need to land these in time for teams to (a) know about the fact that we expect them to dedicate time to them and (b) have time to do any planning at the summit
20:42:15 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : in future cycles, we'll be doing this right before the PTG
20:42:18 <annegentle_> only other question that I hadn't put on review is related to: if you author the goal are you then responsible/accountable for follow up in supporting teams to get what they need to complete the goal?
20:42:32 <sdague> because a bunch of the openstack-specs were like "let's do this thing!" and even if they got approved, then actually doing that thing, and figuring out where that stood in all the projects, was pretty nebulous. And if you can't see how far away the end game is, people get demotivated
20:42:57 <annegentle_> sdague: yeah exactly the scenario I played through too
20:42:59 <sdague> it was amazing how much just doing this http://burndown.dague.org/ helped us work through our api-ref on nova
20:43:02 <dhellmann> annegentle_ : that's a good question. I hope not. I've written this so that we only want goals to be documented by a tc member, in part to avoid having the governance repo turn into the cross-project specs repo.
20:43:14 <annegentle_> dhellmann: ayup, got it.
20:43:15 <mugsie> so, in that line of thinking, would goals that only really affect a few projects be accepted?
20:43:20 <thingee> annegentle_, dhellmann: I don't think it should. it should be up to the team.
20:43:21 <dims> annegentle_ : +1 should have sufficient help to the teams
20:43:23 <flaper87> sdague: lol, I read "execution support" entirely wrong
20:43:30 <flaper87> sdague: good thing you elaborated on that
20:43:31 <sdague> flaper87: heh
20:43:37 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: it was so good we stole that for the configuration options:
20:44:04 <thingee> annegentle_, dhellmann the TC may review who has followed through the goals though and may reach out to projects.
20:44:17 <dhellmann> mugsie : the oslo goal that's up now affects fewer projects than I thought when I wrote it up, but we wouldn't be likely to take something as "community wide" if we knew from the outset that it was only 2 projects.
20:44:31 <dhellmann> thingee : yes, we need to do that review at the end of each cycle
20:45:02 <thingee> dhellmann: great, I think that's the only follow-up that needs to happen. leave the goal author out of it
20:45:04 <dhellmann> sdague : I may be interested in the code for that for release tracking
20:45:08 <annegentle_> dhellmann: and is it worthwhile to propose something that affects one team only? Or is that a 1:1 convo with that team's lead?
20:45:20 <dhellmann> annegentle_ : these are for community-wide goals
20:45:28 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh, sure, I have thoughts about how to make it more generic. We can do that offline.
20:45:41 <thingee> dhellmann: I think it's going to be enough work just getting a goal agreed.
20:45:44 <dhellmann> annegentle_ : if we need a way to make recommendations to individual teams, we need a new process
20:45:45 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: markus_z did a bit of that, possibly
20:45:49 <flaper87> thingee: ++
20:45:58 <dhellmann> annegentle_ : I'd be happy to collaborate on designing that
20:46:19 <annegentle_> dhellmann: ok, thanks
20:46:30 <flaper87> ok, we have 5 more mins for this topic. Anything else people would like to ask? Other open questions? Huge objections?
20:46:41 <johnthetubaguy> dhellmann: would we not just use the team's own process for work, if its team specific?
20:46:49 <flaper87> The review will be open till ttx is back so there's still time to comment on the review
20:46:49 <russellb> i like it.  thanks for driving this, dhellmann
20:46:52 <annegentle_> that's all I have, hadn't voted yet as I needed to ask these
20:46:52 <sdague> I think this process is useful for even fully understanding how far away we are from things, as dhellmann said, we didn't even know how big the oslo gap was (which is smaller than anticipated) until doing that analysis
20:46:57 <russellb> and the goals seem like obviously good ones
20:46:59 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: +1
20:47:00 <sdague> which is incredibly valuable all on it's own
20:47:02 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : if the tc is asking a team to do something they're not already prioritizing, we may want to do that a different way
20:47:15 <flaper87> annegentle_: I always look forward to your questions, fwiw
20:47:17 <flaper87> :)
20:47:29 <johnthetubaguy> dhellmann: honestly, that feels bad to me, but thats a separate conversation
20:47:32 <annegentle_> heh :)
20:47:33 <johnthetubaguy> so I love the goals
20:47:39 <sdague> and I agree with russellb, thanks dhellmann for driving this
20:47:41 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : right
20:47:49 <johnthetubaguy> its totally something I wanted to see happen while I was on the TC, and love this approach
20:48:33 <flaper87> Ok, unless there are other questions/comments, I think we can move on
20:48:36 <johnthetubaguy> I am tempted to say what we have before the PTG/summit is a draft that could get torn up, but thats just splitting hairs
20:48:53 <annegentle_> johnthetubaguy: yeah I do think timing will matter too
20:49:09 <johnthetubaguy> we need something before, else nothing will happen
20:49:17 <johnthetubaguy> but its likely to get revised
20:49:18 <dhellmann> yeah, we're going to need to work quickly to get goals out of this summit to work on before the ptg in feb
20:49:21 <johnthetubaguy> but honestly, we should just do it
20:49:24 <flaper87> johnthetubaguy: yeah, that was one of the goals
20:49:46 <dims> we should encourage PTL's to file some too? (ex stevemar to add a goal for keystone v3 api support in all projects)
20:49:58 <annegentle_> dims: good Q
20:50:07 <dhellmann> dims : as written, this says tc members will write them up
20:50:14 <dhellmann> I want *us* to be active in this process.
20:50:31 <dims> dhellmann : ok collaborate with one of us to file it
20:50:33 <russellb> need to keep a reasonable limit on the number of these, too
20:50:33 <dhellmann> everyone can propose them, but I want us to take the step of documenting them, and choosing them
20:50:36 <johnthetubaguy> I guess its just a case of getting a sponsor via the ML
20:50:37 <flaper87> dims: and I see those as different goals but we can elaborate on this later
20:50:41 <sdague> dhellmann: ++
20:50:49 <dims> right
20:50:51 <russellb> and just approve a couple/few highest priority ones..
20:51:00 <sdague> let's start with us deep in the middle of this
20:51:01 <annegentle_> dhellmann: yeah I'd imagine a deadline, then a discussion meeting at regular TC meeting time.
20:51:02 <russellb> at least to start with
20:51:06 <dhellmann> dims : also, I do not expect us to be choosing from a bunch of written up goals each cycle. I expect us to have a list of things coming out of the summit, get it narrowed down, then write up a couple of finalists.
20:51:13 <russellb> dhellmann: ++
20:51:17 <flaper87> russellb: I thin kthe priority of some of these goals will be the key of how they will be merged
20:51:18 <flaper87> dhellmann: ++
20:51:19 <annegentle_> dhellmann: oh even better
20:51:26 <sdague> dhellmann: ++
20:51:26 <johnthetubaguy> dhellmann: ++ thats what I was kinda trying to say
20:51:38 <dims> ack dhellmann
20:51:40 <flaper87> ok, 10 mins left, let's move onto Open Discussion! Thanks again, dhellmann
20:51:42 <dhellmann> we're the last step in this process
20:51:47 <mtreinish> dhellmann: ++
20:51:49 <dims> makes sense
20:51:49 <johnthetubaguy> +1
20:51:50 <dhellmann> well, aside from implementation :-)
20:51:55 <johnthetubaguy> heh
20:52:00 <flaper87> #topic Open discussion
20:52:08 <flaper87> dhellmann: got mestery to vote on the patch
20:52:13 <dhellmann> flaper87 : ++
20:52:13 <flaper87> ttx will vote when he's back
20:52:16 * dims is away on vacation next week
20:52:22 <flaper87> * Agree to at least temporarily abandon stalled items:
20:52:23 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/338796
20:52:25 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/314691
20:52:27 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/295971
20:52:29 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/295528
20:52:31 * flaper87 is away on vacation next week too
20:52:39 <flaper87> Any comments on those reviews?
20:52:43 <dhellmann> flaper87 : those release model items can be dropped
20:52:48 <mtreinish> flaper87: I'll abandon mine on that list
20:52:51 <flaper87> Any reason why those shouldn't be abandoned ?
20:52:54 <flaper87> mtreinish: thanks
20:52:57 <flaper87> sdake: ^
20:52:57 <mtreinish> I still need to write up the followup proposal
20:53:00 <dhellmann> flaper87 : sorry, the 'type' tag items
20:53:01 <mtreinish> I keep forgetting to do that
20:53:03 <thingee> don't think 338796 is stalled ... the author has been active and waiting for a response from the tc
20:53:05 <dhellmann> the release team isn't going to use those for now
20:53:13 <thingee> mordred: ^
20:53:23 <sdake> flaper87 it makes it hard for me to find the original comments
20:53:31 <annegentle_> thingee: yeah I'd agree with that assessment too
20:53:43 <russellb> mestery voted on the tc vacancy review as well
20:53:45 <sdake> flaper87 but i guess I can unabandon them when I get around to it
20:53:49 <flaper87> sdake: yes
20:53:52 <dhellmann> sdake : yes, please
20:53:54 <flaper87> sdake: please :)
20:53:58 <sdague> sdake: owner:self status:abandoned
20:54:00 <flaper87> sdake: both of them, if you don't mind
20:54:03 <sdague> it's easy to search for them
20:54:05 <mordred> thingee: yah - it's on my list
20:54:25 <flaper87> ok, who's out next week?
20:54:25 <fungi> oh, that reminds me we need the vmt to weigh in on https://review.openstack.org/350597 (which will just be a request to start with a thread on the -dev ml)
20:54:32 <sdake> flaper87 feel free to abandon them - they will be in my inbox
20:54:36 <thingee> flaper87: me
20:54:42 <thingee> spain and burning man
20:54:43 <flaper87> sdake: either you or ttx can do that :(
20:54:48 <dhellmann> sdake : flaper87 doesn't have permission to do it
20:54:51 <sdake> flaper87 i'll get around to em some day when shit isn't on fire ;)
20:54:55 <sdake> oh ok
20:54:58 <sdake> got specific links?
20:55:08 <anteaya> sdake: can we not swear please
20:55:11 <sdake> sorry
20:55:17 <sdake> some day when things are not on fire
20:55:18 <dhellmann> sdake : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/295971/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/295528/
20:55:20 <anteaya> thank you
20:55:23 <sdake> thanks dhellmann
20:55:23 <flaper87> sdake: https://review.openstack.org/295971
20:55:23 <flaper87> sdake: https://review.openstack.org/295528
20:55:33 <flaper87> so, thingee dims and myself will be out
20:55:35 <flaper87> anyone else?
20:55:40 <annegentle_> flaper87: your linking is on fire today :)
20:55:52 <dims> good job flaper87 :)
20:55:56 <mtreinish> flaper87: next week?
20:55:57 <flaper87> sounds like there will be quorum so, there should be meeting
20:55:59 <dhellmann> yeah, thanks again for being chair flaper87
20:55:59 <flaper87> mtreinish: yes
20:56:05 <annegentle_> flaper87: yeah thanks
20:56:05 <flaper87> my pleasure :)
20:56:18 <edleafe> yeah - kudos flaper87!
20:56:39 <flaper87> edleafe: annegentle_ danke danke :)
20:57:09 <flaper87> ok, anything else pressing to discuss ?
20:57:11 <russellb> thanks, flaper87, and enjoy your time off!
20:57:26 <flaper87> otherwise, we can call it a meeting and be happy to have closed it a couple of mins earlier
20:57:36 <flaper87> Or I can do the flaper87 thing and keep talking till time's up
20:57:41 * flaper87 is Italian, he knows how to do that
20:57:44 <flaper87> russellb: thanks :)
20:58:00 <sdague> thanks flaper87
20:58:10 <sdake> flaper87 your wish is my command :)
20:58:10 * flaper87 bows
20:58:11 <sdake> enjoy
20:58:17 <flaper87> ok, let's call it!
20:58:18 <flaper87> thanks everyone
20:58:25 <flaper87> have a great rest of your week
20:58:26 <amrith> thx flaper87
20:58:28 <flaper87> #endmeeting