20:01:31 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:01:31 * rockyg takes usual spot in back
20:01:32 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Apr 18 20:01:31 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:33 * flaper87 hands mordred some actual steak
20:01:34 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:01:36 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:01:36 <mordred> mmmm
20:01:41 <ttx> Hi everyone!
20:01:46 <ttx> Last meeting for the current membership before the election results Friday
20:01:52 <ttx> Our agenda for today is at:
20:01:57 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:01:58 * mordred has enjoyed all of these humans
20:02:10 <ttx> #topic Add TC repo project-navigator-data
20:02:11 <cdent> mordred: are you eating humans?
20:02:15 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/453867
20:02:19 <dtroyer_zz> o/
20:02:22 * ttx checks there were no last-minute objections before approving
20:02:34 <mordred> cdent: yup
20:02:36 <ttx> there were none, so approving now
20:02:44 <flaper87> ship it
20:02:50 <ttx> #topic Resolution on OpenStack's mission for cloud applications
20:02:51 <mordred> ttx: while we're on that - I'm about to send out an email requesting people add information to the repo
20:02:57 <zaneb> o/
20:02:57 <ttx> #undo
20:02:57 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: #topic Resolution on OpenStack's mission for cloud applications
20:03:08 <ttx> mordred: oh right, want to say more on that ?
20:03:11 <mordred> ttx: I'm assuming "just send it" is fine with everyone?
20:03:16 <ttx> mordred: fine by me
20:03:22 <flaper87> yup
20:03:22 <mordred> tl;dr "hey everybody, send patches with versions"
20:03:24 <mordred> cool
20:03:26 <ttx> the sooner the better
20:03:33 * johnthetubaguy finally gets connected and joins in
20:03:34 <mordred> bombs away
20:03:39 <ttx> #topic Resolution on OpenStack's mission for cloud applications
20:03:44 <ttx> zaneb: sorry for false start
20:03:48 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/447031
20:03:50 <zaneb> no worries :)
20:03:55 <ttx> this one seems to have passed the community RFC bar
20:04:01 <ttx> I think we can finally approve it now ?
20:04:11 <mordred> zaneb: thanks for writing that zaneb
20:04:13 <mordred> gah
20:04:18 <flaper87> ship it
20:04:20 <dhellmann> what's the next step after this resolution? what change are we hoping to trigger?
20:04:23 <mordred> zaneb: I'm going to refer to you by name twice in all sentences now zaneb
20:04:24 <flaper87> also, yeah, thanks zaneb
20:04:36 <zaneb> mordred: no worries mordred
20:05:01 * ttx approves before discussing the next move
20:05:53 <zaneb> thanks everyone!
20:05:55 <ttx> dhellmann: I read it more as a statement to clarify the direction, rather than an action plan
20:06:03 <ttx> but maybe zaneb has more up his sleeves
20:06:07 <mtreinish> ttx: yeah, ditto
20:06:14 <flaper87> ttx: that's how I read it too
20:06:21 <zaneb> dhellmann: stuff in the footnote would be a good start
20:06:46 <zaneb> I believe johnthetubaguy already has some discussions set up for the forum
20:06:49 <johnthetubaguy> I was hoping the VM & BM working group session at the forum would be a great place to continue the conversation about making progress on that
20:06:51 <dhellmann> ok. I thought maybe it was tied to some specific feature requests, like -- ok, cool, thanks zaneb
20:07:08 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, I should dig out the link
20:07:11 <ttx> I think it will facilitate a number of discussions, by providing a reference
20:07:17 <dhellmann> I believe we may also have some free session slots, if we want a session devoted to this
20:07:18 <mordred> johnthetubaguy, zaneb I think I have that on my calendar already, but link would be nice
20:07:47 * ttx waits for link before moving to next topic
20:08:24 <ttx> https://www.openstack.org/summit/boston-2017/summit-schedule/events/18749/writing-applications-for-the-vm-and-baremetal-platform maybe
20:08:25 <zaneb> dhellmann: I'd be happy to help facilitate a session like that
20:08:31 <johnthetubaguy> thats the one
20:08:38 <ttx> or is it https://www.openstack.org/summit/boston-2017/summit-schedule/events/18750/operating-the-vm-and-baremetal-platform-12
20:08:38 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: thank you!
20:08:46 <johnthetubaguy> its writing applications ones
20:08:49 <mordred> yes! on my schedule already
20:08:54 <johnthetubaguy> at least, that was my intention with those
20:09:03 <ttx> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/boston-2017/summit-schedule/events/18749/writing-applications-for-the-vm-and-baremetal-platform
20:09:07 <dhellmann> zaneb : great, maybe you can check in with Tom F?
20:09:14 <mordred> possibly also related I have a"Exposing deployer choices to end users without death" on Tuesday
20:09:25 <zaneb> dhellmann: ack
20:09:32 <ttx> #topic Add a "docs:install-guide-verified" tag
20:09:35 <dhellmann> zaneb : feel free to cc me
20:09:39 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/445536
20:09:47 <ttx> Alexandra and Doug worked on this new version which should avoid most of the objections imho
20:09:59 <sdague> ttx: well, it's now docs:follow-policy
20:10:20 <dhellmann> yes, the idea here was to structure this tag similar to the other policy tags defined by teams like stable and vmt
20:10:23 <fungi> (with an s)
20:10:30 <sdague> fungi: yep, my typo
20:10:30 <ttx> sdague: I think it's clearer now yes
20:10:50 <dhellmann> where the general stuff is here, and the details are defined in the doc team contributor guide
20:11:00 <johnthetubaguy> zaneb: I am struggling to work out if I can still get to the summit, but I would love to help with the prep either way
20:11:04 <ttx> so any last-minute objection before we approve ?
20:11:22 * flaper87 likes this version better
20:11:33 <sdague> nope, I did kind of find the other name more meaningful, but I get why this matches the other pattern
20:12:00 <fungi> i can get behind the name on the grounds that it indicates a deliverable's documentation is developed and released following the docs team's policy
20:12:16 <ttx> pretty much yes
20:12:24 <ttx> OK, let's approve it now then
20:12:30 <sdague> fungi: yeh, just policy is one of the most overloaded terms in openstack land :)
20:12:31 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, seem really useful to tell folks, whatever we call it
20:12:34 <ttx> 30 revs should be enough
20:12:53 <dhellmann> sdague, fungi: I think asettle and I would be happy with a name change if you have an alternative to suggest
20:13:04 <dhellmann> we could do that as a separate patch
20:13:10 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh, I'm fine with moving forward
20:13:18 <dhellmann> ttx, there's a typo patch on top of this one that I think we can probably fast-approve
20:13:19 * ttx pushes the blue button
20:13:30 <fungi> suggesting new names violates my personal no-bikeshed policy ;)
20:13:43 <ttx> typo patch approved too
20:13:48 <flaper87> fungi: ++
20:13:50 <dhellmann> thanks, everyone
20:14:07 <dhellmann> we'll probably have one of these from the i18n team, soon, too (I need to talk with Ian)
20:14:08 <flaper87> dhellmann: thank you and thanks asettle
20:14:08 <mtreinish> fungi: just suggest  docs:not-a-bikeshed :)
20:14:08 <ttx> dhellmann: thanks to you for helping push it through the finish mine
20:14:15 <ttx> and thanks asettle for driving it
20:14:22 <mordred> fungi: what color do you think the bikeshed would be if it existed?
20:14:26 <ttx> finish line. finish line. Not mine.
20:14:38 <ttx> finish mine sounds dangerous
20:14:41 <mordred> finish mine seems like a thing
20:14:53 <ttx> #topic Remove App Catalog from official projects
20:15:01 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/452086
20:15:19 <ttx> This seems to have gathered enough approvals from the current membership
20:15:32 <ttx> But since it is a first for a project team that is still alive, I was wondering if we should throw it on the ML again before pushing the button
20:15:40 <fungi> one thing that feels missing here (and why i haven't rollcall-voted yet) is that it's missing input from the ptl (either for or against)
20:15:41 <ttx> There was a thread already, which quickly went off-topic
20:15:51 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-March/113362.html
20:16:03 <mordred> olaph: ^^
20:16:04 <mtreinish> olaph: ^^^
20:16:14 <mtreinish> mordred: err, you win
20:16:15 <flaper87> ttx: for the sake of openness and over-communication, I'd send one more email
20:16:15 <mordred> mtreinish: you used more carets than I did, I think you win this one
20:16:20 <olaph> i've abstained because of conflict of intrest :)
20:16:40 <ttx> yeah, I understand how it can be difficult to vote on that for olaph
20:16:50 <mordred> indeed
20:16:54 <fungi> you're willing to defer to the tc's judgement in this matter and have no input into it?
20:17:19 <ttx> I think it's more, "I understand why you're doing it", based on past discussions with olaph and doaceado
20:17:21 <fungi> i mean, that is also a position
20:17:35 <fungi> and nice to have recorded (now it is, i suppose!)
20:18:10 <olaph> sure, I can at least put something to that affect in the patch
20:18:24 <ttx> We could also wait for the next membership to confirm this, and/or start a new thread
20:18:26 <fungi> certainly doesn't need a -1 or +1 if you don't feel like adding one
20:18:36 <ttx> But then it's not as if it was hard to reverse it
20:18:46 <fungi> but a sentence in a comment would be helpful to me at least
20:19:06 <dhellmann> yeah, it would be nice to have the abstention recorded formally
20:19:34 <fungi> mostly just so there's a record that someone representing that team is aware of the proposed change
20:19:38 <ttx> Would you rather approve it now, and let it simmer for one more week and get the next membership to approve it ?
20:19:42 <fungi> if nothing else
20:19:43 <dhellmann> ttx: I don't really see significant objections from any of the folks running for the TC. Do we need to wait?
20:20:02 <ttx> dhellmann: I'm fine with approving now, just checking the rest of the TC's view
20:20:05 <dhellmann> I'm not opposed, just wondering.
20:20:28 <ttx> if all approvers are fine with approving this week (once olaph's comment is posted), I'm fine too
20:20:49 <fungi> and only ~half the tc's up for reelection
20:20:51 * flaper87 is fine w/ approving
20:21:25 <ttx> Alright, let's give some time to olaph and revisit at end of meeting
20:21:33 <ttx> #topic Propose the addition of an status:maintenance-mode
20:21:39 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/449925
20:21:58 <ttx> amrith: around ?
20:22:03 <amrith> yup
20:22:05 <ttx> Last time we discussed this, and in mtreinish's recent review, the objection is that it conflates two different cases
20:22:05 <amrith> hello
20:22:13 <ttx> 1/ being under maintenance mode because the team is struggling and can't really add features
20:22:22 <ttx> 2/ being under maintenance mode because the deliverable is feature-complete
20:22:32 <ttx> In (1) the tag communicates the need for more contributors, while in (2) it communicates that the project is done
20:22:38 <ttx> which is arguably two different things
20:22:57 <dhellmann> if I can break fungi's bike-shedding rule, I think this name should be reserved for case 2
20:23:11 <ttx> mtreinish: you would rather have this one explicitly targetr only (1) ?
20:23:23 <dhellmann> it seems that amrith's need is to cover case 1
20:23:38 <amrith> dhellmann, help me understand this please.
20:23:40 <fungi> dhellmann: it's just my personal policy for not involving myself in bikeshed discussions. feel free to adopt it yourself or not as you see fit ;)
20:23:45 <mtreinish> ttx: yeah, the way everything is worded in the tag it definitely seems to be targetted to #1
20:23:57 <amrith> what would you like the proposal to state? that the reason for this state (to-be-named) is because we need more contributors?
20:24:10 <mtreinish> dhellmann: yeah and I think maintenance should be reserved for #2
20:24:12 <ttx> status:dying-please-help
20:24:51 <amrith> sure, works for me, just tell me what you want. Personally, I think the distinction being made here is highly academic. We are making the perfect be the enemy of the good (IMHO).
20:24:57 <sdague> I kind of feel like it's a bit of an artificial distinction
20:24:58 <johnthetubaguy> right, I was going to ask, where is the action different, I guess is the contributor side, one project is asking for help, the other is saying "we are done"
20:25:03 <dhellmann> yeah, if you're looking for more help I don't think this tag name is going to get it
20:25:12 <sdague> just based on motivation. Everything could get more features with more people.
20:25:19 <ttx> sdague: yeah, me too, was fine with conflating the two. For /users/, the end result is the same
20:25:23 <sdague> yep
20:25:28 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, for users it seems the same
20:25:31 <amrith> dhellmann, we're not looking for the tag to suggest that more help is needed; more that people shouldn't expect too much
20:25:31 * dhellmann shrugs
20:25:33 <fungi> so the suggestion is to make it more obviously a help-wanted sign?
20:25:35 <johnthetubaguy> its the contributor side I wasn't so sure about
20:25:36 <ttx> and tags are for users
20:25:59 <mtreinish> for users it might be the same. But it depends on the audience, because one is actually looking for contributors to step up
20:26:00 <ttx> personally I would keep it as is, and create a priority list of help wanted
20:26:04 <amrith> again, let me reiterate, my desire is to communicate what Mad TV called "lowered expectations".
20:26:05 <dhellmann> amrith : I guess it's the difference between "don't expect too much" and "we wish we could do more"
20:26:14 <sdague> I think the only other thing I might suggest is that the TC membership is added as core to any project that ends up in this state, so that critical stuff has someone around to make sure things get through
20:26:22 <ttx> i.e. we could put a project in maintenance-mode *and* on the priority list of things needing urgent help
20:26:31 <amrith> Yes, I intend "don't expect too much". of course the corollary is "if you expect more, step up".
20:26:33 <mtreinish> and as a random person looking to contribute if I saw maint-mode, I wouldn't even try to contribute
20:26:49 <sdague> because we've definitely gotten into weird states where litterally there was no one around that could approve on a project like sqlalchemy-migrate
20:26:51 <amrith> mtreinish, we aren't looking for random people
20:26:51 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: as apposed to just doing self-approvals, which I presume is the alternative? thats interesting
20:26:53 <amrith> to contribute
20:27:00 <sdague> johnthetubaguy: there might not even be a self
20:27:09 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: good point
20:27:09 <amrith> but to a person interested in trove; who sees the maintenance mode, it would mean "if I want more, I have to step up"
20:27:17 <dhellmann> I don't feel that strongly about it,  but it's not clear to me what outcome you want from having the tag so I'm trying to weigh the various possible interpretations.
20:27:49 <amrith> dhellmann, I'm looking for the tag to be an acknowledgement of "lowered expectatins"
20:27:56 <ttx> amrith: ++
20:27:59 <sdague> amrith: ++
20:28:02 <dtroyer_zz> I see the reason for wanting the distinction, and it may make a different to the user if they can sort out _why_ this tag was added.
20:28:20 <ttx> I think the right place to put that distinction is in a help wanted list, not in a tag
20:28:26 <sdague> dtroyer_zz: maybe, but we have a commit message on the tag add
20:28:36 <ttx> just because tags are mainly for users, while help wanted lists are mainly for contributors
20:28:43 <dtroyer_zz> sdague: yes, how many users will now how to find that?
20:28:44 <mtreinish> sdague: that assumes someone goes and digs it up from the log
20:28:51 <sdague> mtreinish: it does
20:28:56 <edleafe> fwiw, "maintenance" suggests to me being complete, not in need of help
20:29:03 <fungi> i have a dream that users will become our contributors, but i understand the concern
20:29:15 <dtroyer_zz> edleafe: ++
20:29:17 <amrith> edleafe, let's leave the name out of it; let's call it 'tag-whose-name-is-tbd'
20:29:22 <dhellmann> I do think there's a difference between saying expectations are low and will stay there, and expectations can go up with more help, and I'm not sure that this tag description clearly says the latter as it seems to do for some of the rest of you.
20:29:26 <rockyg> dtroyer_zz, ++ you need to say somewhere for the guy who wants more, how to step up
20:29:28 <ttx> fungi: not saying those are not highly-overlapping groups. But it's still two different hats
20:29:29 <amrith> status:lowered-expectations
20:29:40 <dtroyer_zz> ameade: the name matters because it carries connotation, which may be different from what you intend
20:29:52 <amrith> agreed dtroyer_zz
20:30:03 <amrith> hence I'm un-entangling the name conversation from the intent
20:30:12 <amrith> once we agree on intent, we can bikeshed the name
20:30:21 <sdague> so, having become accidental maintainer of a number of projects, inside and outside of openstack, I totally think tagging them as maintenance mode only is a good idea
20:30:23 <dhellmann> that said, the current description is better than having no tag at all
20:30:26 <sdague> because people do have expectactions
20:30:27 <sdague> dhellmann: ++
20:30:42 <johnthetubaguy> ++
20:30:51 <sdague> like, sqlalchemy-migrate and grenade would be great candidates for this tag
20:30:55 <mordred> sdague: ++ ... people don't really always know that mox3 was intended for transition, for instance
20:30:56 <ttx> I think it's fine to merge this and refine
20:30:59 <mordred> yah. and sqlalchemy-migrate
20:31:04 <sdague> mordred: ++ on mox3
20:31:12 <ttx> as dhellmann said, something is better than nothing here
20:31:18 <fungi> and we get tons of drive-by feature additions for git-review as another example
20:31:20 <sdague> there is a whole lot of stuff that people assume there is a much deeper bench than there really is
20:31:24 <mordred> fungi: ++
20:31:31 <smcginnis> mordred: mox3 info later?
20:31:31 <amrith> sdague, ++
20:31:31 <dhellmann> ttx: though once the tag is applied we have to be careful with redefining it
20:31:37 <dtroyer_zz> I'm onboard with this tag, but want to be clear since we're talking about expectations that it may not set the intended ones all the way around
20:31:45 <flaper87> dhellmann: ++
20:31:47 <mtreinish> sdague: but in most of those cases we don't intend this to be a transient state
20:31:56 <sdague> mtreinish: some times
20:32:00 <fungi> granted, the people who are submitting features to a repo and aren't aware of its development status aren't likely to know to look for our governance tags either
20:32:05 <amrith> ttx, and others, if we are ok with the intent of the tag (lowered expectations), can we now discuss names?
20:32:05 <mtreinish> like sqlalchemy-migrate is always in maint-mode
20:32:11 <dhellmann> mtreinish : ++
20:32:20 <dhellmann> maybe we can take that transient part out
20:32:28 <dhellmann> in a revision
20:32:40 <ttx> status:currently-in-maintenance-only-mode
20:32:49 <sdague> maybe, I think projects get to this state for a lot of reasons
20:32:53 <amrith> dhellmann, I don't follow the take out transient part in a revision comment
20:33:01 <dhellmann> fungi : we could have a bot automatically comment on patches when a repo has this tag
20:33:11 <sdague> and I think it's fine to suggest that more contributors could move things out of there, it's definitely a case by case basis
20:33:15 <mtreinish> sdague: that's my point, but the tag is clearly written with a very specific case
20:33:20 <dhellmann> amrith : if we're going to apply this to projects that we want to stay in maintenance mode, then we don't want to say the tag is always transient
20:33:20 <fungi> dhellmann: yep, or a gerrit hook
20:33:29 <dhellmann> fungi : tomato, tomato :-)
20:34:22 <ttx> amrith: I'm fine with it the way it stands
20:34:34 <ttx> waiting for alternate proposals
20:34:50 <fungi> there is plenty of negative sentiment expressed when we have automation reply to patches contributed on github saying nobody's going to look at them, but not getting any feedback at all is definitely worse
20:35:13 <sdague> yeh, I feel like this is fine as is, I think the coming out of it is more implied, and I think this is better than just silently dropping things
20:35:32 <dhellmann> yeah, let's move ahead with this and we can propose updates to address the issues we've raised here
20:35:49 <dtroyer_zz> ++
20:35:55 <ttx> yes, nobody said a lowered-expectations tag was a bad idea. Just details on how to phrase it
20:35:57 <amrith> to a point raised in an earlier discussion, do we want to give the new TC a voice here?
20:35:59 * flaper87 already voted on the tag
20:36:12 <ttx> I'm fine waiting for one more week
20:36:24 <dtroyer_zz> If we want the new TC to handle things today, we should have just deferred them
20:36:30 <ttx> but at this point, simpler to amend it after it landed
20:36:32 <fungi> the new tc always has a voice. they (well, we for those not up for reelection) can always modify this
20:36:32 <sdague> amrith: I can propose that as a follow on
20:36:44 <edleafe> I think postponing sets a bad precedent
20:36:44 <ttx> fungi: exactly
20:36:52 <edleafe> You guys are the TC today
20:37:00 <ttx> ok, I'll approve it now
20:37:01 <flaper87> edleafe: yup
20:37:23 <mordred> edleafe: I feel like that's a t-shirt
20:37:25 <flaper87> we've postponed approvals in the past but for some specific cases
20:37:29 <mordred> "TC (today)"
20:37:34 <fungi> deferring a decision to the next leadership can be an attractive means of avoiding making decisions
20:37:35 <amrith> ok, thx sdague fungi ttx dhellmann dtroyer_zz mtreinish flaper87 smcginnis ...
20:37:37 <ttx> and done
20:37:56 <amrith> heads-up folks, trove gets this tag (patch being proposed)
20:38:01 <ttx> #topic Remove App Catalog from official projects (final discussion)
20:38:02 <dhellmann> sdague: I'm working on a follow-up right now with some of the things we said
20:38:11 <edleafe> flaper87: sure, but there should be specific reasons, and not just as a matter of informal policy
20:38:13 <sdague> dhellmann: ok
20:38:16 <ttx> We got the comment from olaph
20:38:22 <mtreinish> dhellmann: heh, I'll close my editor then :)
20:38:27 <olaph> yep, i've recorded my abstention
20:38:32 <ttx> so i'm ready to approve https://review.openstack.org/#/c/452086/
20:38:48 <sdague> dhellmann: the tc with commit is maybe specific enough to want to debate that on it's own, your call
20:38:52 <ttx> since <edleafe> You guys are the TC today
20:38:55 <flaper87> ttx: go
20:39:04 <ttx> and done
20:39:08 <dhellmann> sdague: maybe you want to add that one?
20:39:27 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh, I'll do it as a dedicated add on patch, we'll see how it goes
20:39:34 <fungi> thanks olaph!
20:39:42 <ttx> olaph: thanks
20:39:49 <ttx> #topic Stalled reviews
20:40:01 <ttx> OK, stalled reviews... We had a few more on the agenda, but those were unblocked and merged since then
20:40:05 <ttx> * Add monitorstack to OpenStack-Ansible (https://review.openstack.org/444325)
20:40:16 <ttx> This one is blocked waiting for clarification on what monitorstack is (as it sounds a bit orthogonal to OSA's goals)
20:40:26 <ttx> I'm concerned about scope creep here, I like teams dedicated to one specific goal/scope
20:40:36 <ttx> If the same group of people wants to tackle another goal, that's fine, they can just create another team with roughly the same people in it
20:40:44 <ttx> But maybe I don't understand what monitorstack is
20:40:50 <fungi> can even have the same ptl if they want ;)
20:40:52 <ttx> (which is why I left an open question there)
20:41:14 <johnthetubaguy> seems a good question to ask
20:41:19 <ttx> Next step there is to chase down the PTL for an answer
20:41:24 <ttx> * Add tag assert:never-breaks-compat (https://review.openstack.org/446561)
20:41:27 <ttx> mordred: what's the next step here ?
20:41:45 <mordred> ttx: I should probably make a new version at some point
20:42:04 <ttx> ok :)
20:42:11 <mordred> ttx: otoh - in general people seemed fairly skeptical about it - so I'll likely wait until after the summit at the very earliest
20:42:14 <ttx> I'll keep it in the pressure cooker until then
20:42:28 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:42:36 <mordred> that'll maybe give some facetime to socialize the thoughleader synergy
20:42:36 <ttx> A few things I wanted to cover... and rosmaita posted one to the -tc list recently
20:42:44 <ttx> First quick reminder that the TC election is going on, last days to vote
20:42:55 <ttx> #info TC election is going on, last days to vote
20:42:55 <mordred> (also the release naming election for r)
20:43:05 <ttx> yes, some people were still complaining of not having received the R naming poll stuff
20:43:13 * smcginnis waves
20:43:13 <ttx> mordred: you on those ^
20:43:16 <mordred> oh - awesome. well, they've all gone out as far as I'm concerned
20:43:23 <flaper87> ttx: and one person that I know of about the TC election email
20:43:30 <ttx> mordred: see complaints on the ml
20:43:33 <mordred> oh - neat
20:43:38 <flaper87> not sure if that was a corner case but diablo_rojo_phon was on it
20:43:42 <ttx> flaper87: ask them to contact election officials
20:43:47 <flaper87> ttx: I did :)
20:43:54 <ttx> Second, due to unfortunate timing I'm on family vacation next week
20:44:01 <mtreinish> mordred: it's probably time we start working on deploying are own civs...
20:44:02 <ttx> So if I end up being elected I'll very likely miss the first meeting on the new membership
20:44:08 <mtreinish> s/are/our/
20:44:12 <ttx> I'll push all the regular administrative stuff to be ready for review, and prepare the usual welcome package content
20:44:17 <ttx> Anyone up for chairing that meeting ?
20:44:23 <mordred> mtreinish: yes. I believe we do want to discuss that
20:44:23 <flaper87> ttx: I can help
20:44:24 * rockyg waves too
20:44:26 <fungi> ttx: happened to me last election. i was on a boat in the middle of the atlantic with no internet access when the election concluded
20:44:26 <ttx> (someone not standing for reelection ideally)
20:44:27 <dhellmann> mordred : I have not received any email about that poll
20:44:29 <flaper87> oh wait
20:44:32 <flaper87> I'm up for election
20:44:35 <flaper87> ROFL
20:44:40 <mordred> anybody know what the subject is on the list?
20:44:49 <flaper87> if I'm elected, I can help, I guess.
20:44:56 <flaper87> well, I could help even if not but
20:44:59 * flaper87 stfu
20:45:08 <ttx> mordred: it's your thread
20:45:10 <dhellmann> ttx: I should be able to do it
20:45:15 <ttx> "Emails for OpenStack R Release Name voting going out - please be patient"
20:45:27 <sdague> mordred: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115077.html
20:45:30 <sdague> and follows
20:45:31 <mordred> thanks
20:45:33 <ttx> dhellmann: OK, you're around on Friday ? I'll pass the package to you then
20:45:37 <fungi> thanks dhellmann! (you saved me from having to volunteer to chair two meetings back-to-back next tuesday)
20:45:48 <flaper87> dhellmann: thanks
20:45:50 <dhellmann> ttx: yeah, we can talk friday
20:45:51 <ttx> sdague: wanted to discuss TC vision feedback & next steps ?
20:46:00 <ttx> then rosmaita wanted to talk glance
20:46:22 <sdague> right, the vision has been out for 2 weeks now, we've definitely been getting some feedback via various channels
20:46:38 <flaper87> ttx: I don't see rosmaita around
20:46:43 <flaper87> :(
20:46:46 <ttx> I feel like a lot of it were complaints around the format
20:46:55 <sdague> one thing I noticed was there was definitely some confusion on framing of it, I've had a few conversations with folks where until I explained the process it didn't click
20:46:57 <ttx> flaper87: I can parrot the email he just sent, once we are done with vision
20:47:09 <dhellmann> maybe we should amend with a preamble explaining the format
20:47:19 <fungi> i was thinking about the framing... if it just started out with a "picture this, if you will..."
20:47:21 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh, or a blog post on the TC blog around it
20:47:26 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, seems we need a preamble
20:47:32 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: maybe both?
20:47:38 <dhellmann> sdague : if we're going to send people to this document, it probably makes sense to do it inline where they'll see it
20:47:40 <mtreinish> johnthetubaguy: ++ to both
20:48:03 <sdague> dhellmann: maybe, I found the explaination that I gave was nearly as long as the vision itself
20:48:29 <johnthetubaguy> so there is a summit presentation with ttx gothicmindfood and I think me, I guess that needs to cover that explaination
20:48:31 <dhellmann> sdague : ok. maybe something in the repo we can link to from this page, then? I just don't like the context being hosted separately.
20:49:04 <rockyg> agree with dhellmann
20:49:19 <fungi> i think we could probably find ways to make the intent of the choice of format more explicit without adding too much prose to the start of the existing narrative
20:50:04 <fungi> doesn't have to be a painfully verbose description of the reasons and process for it (which i agree is also necessary but can be somewhere separate/parallel)
20:50:12 <ttx> ok, anything else on the feedback, beyond format confusion ?
20:50:30 <sdague> well, I think there is the more general next steps question
20:50:41 <sdague> we're collecting various feedback now
20:50:45 <fungi> the "after it's approved, what now?"
20:50:46 <sdague> we're going to get some in Boston
20:51:02 <ttx> sdague: next step after Boston is formal approval
20:51:19 <dhellmann> somewhere in there we should look at the feedback and decide if we want to make changes based on it :-)
20:51:26 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh ++
20:51:29 <ttx> then starting to do things, yes
20:51:44 <ttx> ah, yes :)
20:52:15 <ttx> I included that in formal approval. Obviously iterate on the review and contact back people that had given specific feedback
20:52:27 <dhellmann> so maybe that's the next step, after the forum, to have all of the feedback gathered in one place to make reviewing it easier?
20:52:32 <sdague> I think there are some interesting bits that have popped up that demonstrate need for clarity. I guess I wonder if it makes sense to try to gather in some way in boston to discuss that feedback that we've gotten thus far to figure out if there are any major things we need to move forward
20:52:44 <sdague> or at least have a subteam assessing that
20:52:48 <ttx> I'll be around
20:53:06 <ttx> We could do a late Thursday Forum discussion on the rev2
20:53:10 <dhellmann> sure, at the forum makes sense, too
20:53:20 * flaper87 will be there
20:53:27 <dhellmann> will we have the feedback collected in one place by then?
20:53:28 <ttx> mostly meant as a workgroup thing but fine if people join too
20:53:33 * mtreinish has both his talks thurs. afternoon :(
20:53:43 <ttx> mtreinish: what time ?
20:53:49 <mtreinish> err, one sec
20:54:06 <fungi> mtreinish: our firehose talk is 4:10pm-4:50pm
20:54:12 * ttx doesn't have anythign yet on Thu afternoon
20:54:28 <ttx> it's a weird feeling
20:54:40 <mtreinish> my laundrycloud talk is at 2:20-3:00p
20:54:59 <ttx> ok, so the 5:00pm slot is available
20:55:02 <sdague> when is the feedback seesion?
20:55:18 <ttx> general feedback ? Thursday noon
20:55:43 <ttx> Would like to go through rosmaita's email before we close
20:55:44 <mtreinish> ttx: heh, last session of the week :)
20:56:03 <sdague> ttx: ok, I ceed the floor
20:56:06 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2017-April/001362.html
20:56:36 <ttx> Basically most of the remaining Glance contributors were wiped out by the recent events
20:56:40 <ttx> including the PTL
20:57:11 <ttx> We might need to put it in status:maintenance-mode and appoint a PTL
20:57:20 <ttx> to cover the basic stuff
20:57:37 <amrith> ouch
20:58:00 <ttx> We'll see how that goes, but it's a good hedas-up
20:58:04 <ttx> heads-up
20:58:14 <flaper87> ttx: fwiw, jokke will still be around. maintenance-mode might make sense but I could ask him if he's up for the job and see if we can find a "solution"
20:58:22 <flaper87> but yeah, that's a terrible hit
20:58:34 <ttx> oh sure. I'm not saying we'll have to do it. But we might
20:58:58 <ttx> And thanks to Brian for keeping us in the loop
20:59:07 <flaper87> ++
20:59:30 <ttx> On this sad note we'll close the last meeting of this membership
20:59:43 <flaper87> thanks everyone
20:59:44 <fungi> rough stuff
20:59:47 <ttx> For the next membership we'll probably reconsider the need for a meeting
20:59:50 <flaper87> and good luck to all the candidates
21:00:03 <rockyg> Dang!  I'm sad.  But thanks, everyone.  See the next team next week!
21:00:16 <amrith> ./
21:00:26 <amrith> \.
21:00:31 <amrith> bye bye all (for now)
21:00:38 <ttx> Thanks everyone! It was a pleasure working with all of you these last 6 months
21:00:46 <ttx> #endmeeting