| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 00:06 | |
| *** westmaas_ is now known as westmaas | 00:54 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:56 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 01:13 | |
| *** blamar__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:17 | |
| *** blamar__ has quit IRC | 01:50 | |
| *** blamar__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:02 | |
| *** santhosh has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:07 | |
| *** blamar__ has quit IRC | 04:17 | |
| *** ThePing has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:56 | |
| *** ThePing has left #openstack-meeting | 04:56 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 06:51 | |
| *** Binbin_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:53 | |
| *** Binbin_ is now known as Binbin | 06:53 | |
| *** nerens has joined #openstack-meeting | 07:36 | |
| *** katkee has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:34 | |
| *** Arminder has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:08 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 09:13 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:26 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 10:32 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 10:44 | |
| *** katkee has quit IRC | 11:00 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:35 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 11:36 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 11:50 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:07 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:12 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:17 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 12:19 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 12:34 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:49 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 12:50 | |
| *** santhosh has quit IRC | 12:55 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:57 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:03 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 13:15 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:17 | |
| *** katkee has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:21 | |
| *** nerens has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| *** med_out is now known as medberry | 13:46 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:11 | |
| *** hub_cap has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:16 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:30 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 14:32 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:39 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 15:02 | |
| *** katkee has quit IRC | 15:03 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:03 | |
| *** nerens has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:25 | |
| *** katkee has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:25 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 15:35 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 15:42 | |
| *** johnpur has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:58 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 16:02 | |
| *** hub-cap has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:06 | |
| *** hub_cap has quit IRC | 16:06 | |
| *** hub-cap is now known as hub_cap | 16:06 | |
| *** katkee has quit IRC | 16:40 | |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:13 | |
| *** hub-cap has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:29 | |
| *** hub_cap has quit IRC | 17:30 | |
| *** hub-cap is now known as hub_cap | 17:30 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:42 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:02 | |
| *** katkee has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:19 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 18:33 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 18:34 | |
| vishy | hello? | 19:00 |
|---|---|---|
| ttx | jbryce: meeting ? | 19:00 |
| jbryce | yes | 19:00 |
| jbryce | who all is here? | 19:01 |
| ttx | o/ | 19:01 |
| eday | here | 19:01 |
| johnpur | o/ | 19:01 |
| *** hub_cap has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| notmyname | hi | 19:03 |
| vishy | o/ | 19:03 |
| jbryce | #start-meeting | 19:03 |
| ttx | s/-// | 19:03 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 19:03 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu May 19 19:03:33 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:03 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:03 |
| jbryce | = ) | 19:03 |
| jbryce | agenda - http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB | 19:04 |
| jbryce | #topic previous actions | 19:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "previous actions" | 19:04 | |
| ttx | Eric and I had to draft a project model description | 19:04 |
| *** anotherjesse has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:04 | |
| jbryce | ttx and I sent out drafts | 19:04 |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:04 | |
| ttx | Visible at http://etherpad.openstack.org/PQ7dy5in2B | 19:04 |
| anotherjesse | here! | 19:04 |
| ttx | yay, quorum | 19:05 |
| jbryce | I went ahead and added it to the http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes page | 19:05 |
| ttx | jbryce: ok | 19:05 |
| johnpur | jbryce: i had a couple of comments, sent back on the list | 19:05 |
| *** hub_cap has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:06 | |
| anotherjesse | project resources <- kinda confusing to say that - since code has its own license | 19:06 |
| anotherjesse | maybe defining resources as things like domains, ...? | 19:07 |
| anotherjesse | strike that | 19:07 |
| ttx | Anne suggests we add "documentation" as a Commonality? | 19:08 |
| ttx | I'll add it | 19:08 |
| ewanmellor | Is "should strive to use the same standards, in code" meant to imply the same programming language for all core projects? I presume not, but it sounds like it does. | 19:08 |
| annegentle | I didn't put together a "doc shepherding guidelines" proposal in time for this meeting, but I can do so in time for next week's | 19:09 |
| johnpur | jbryce: the way you havethe page laid out it implies that the 5 bullets at the top apply to all 3 project types... is this what you mean? | 19:10 |
| eday | ewanmellor: it's mainly about consistency when possible. For example, all Python projects should use similar libs/pep8/etc. Certainly doesn't imply the same language | 19:10 |
| ttx | jbryce: agree with johnpur that "incubation assets" needs a definition | 19:11 |
| jbryce | johnpur: they seemed like broader concepts so i just stuck them at the top | 19:11 |
| johnpur | for instance, related projects don't have the constraints or the supportgiven tot he other 2 classes | 19:11 |
| *** jmckenty has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:11 | |
| ewanmellor | eday: That's what I expected. I think the language could do with some work. | 19:11 |
| jbryce | johnpur: feel free to edit the page | 19:12 |
| johnpur | ha ha... walked into that one! | 19:12 |
| jbryce | on the incubation assets i agree that it's fuzzy, but we haven't really defined what those are yet, so i was hoping to get some input | 19:12 |
| ttx | johnpur: at least, you are free to try | 19:12 |
| ttx | wikis are not tha tgood at simuletaneous edits | 19:12 |
| jbryce | we said they could get a subdomain, they could potentially use the build infrastructure....what else should go in there? | 19:13 |
| johnpur | i'll defer any edits until later to give others room to update | 19:13 |
| jmckenty | should we pull that page into etherpad for some editing | 19:13 |
| jmckenty | ? | 19:13 |
| jmckenty | jbryce: what about the mailing lists? | 19:13 |
| ttx | jmckenty: that's where my part was originally placed :) | 19:13 |
| eday | jmckenty: that's really a community thing, anyone can use the mailing list, incubated or not :) | 19:14 |
| ewanmellor | "approved for entry into the Incubator program": should that read "approved by the PPB"? | 19:14 |
| jmckenty | yes, although it's implied | 19:14 |
| ttx | ok, stop editing, I'll push to etherpad | 19:14 |
| johnpur | i agree with where jmckenty is going... we just need to be very explicit about all aspects, on a per project class basis. Or else, folks will be very confused, etc. | 19:15 |
| ttx | http://etherpad.openstack.org/PQ7dy5in2B | 19:15 |
| jmckenty | eday: I think the fact that the mailing list is a community resource, if that's in fact the case, should be explicitly spelled out | 19:15 |
| jmckenty | otherwise I would be tempted to shout "off topic" occasionally | 19:15 |
| eday | makes sense | 19:15 |
| jmckenty | the volume on that list means I rarely read it now | 19:15 |
| jmckenty | I only read 100% on the -poc list | 19:16 |
| ttx | please edit on etherpad | 19:16 |
| jmckenty | edit-in-progress.... | 19:18 |
| jbryce | while the editing is happening there, last week we had a couple of actions as well: checking on the forums which are now live and johnpur was going to verify that QnA as a replacement for Launchpad Answers was the route we wanted to take | 19:19 |
| jbryce | related to that second item, we actually had a proposal: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/QuestionAndAnswerSoftware | 19:20 |
| johnpur | related projects do or do not have the "right" to the channels, ml, etc.? | 19:20 |
| ttx | anotherjesse: does my new paragraph fit the bill for your concern ? | 19:21 |
| ttx | (distribution) | 19:21 |
| jmckenty | jbryce: looking at QnA now... | 19:21 |
| anotherjesse | looks good | 19:21 |
| jbryce | johnpur: not sure how to define those rights | 19:22 |
| eday | johnpur: I would say do, are we really going to moderate? We should avoid business advertising, but project announcements seem appropriate | 19:22 |
| jmckenty | eday: how do you differentiate those? | 19:22 |
| johnpur | jbryce: concensus is that Q&A style is preferable... the proposal looks fine... i advocate we use another open source project as the basis. | 19:22 |
| jmckenty | e.g., if I have a freemium product, can I announce that? | 19:22 |
| jbryce | i think we have enough vocal people on the mailing list who will call a spade a spade if someone comes on and does shameless promotion that is annoyingly off topic | 19:23 |
| jmckenty | jbryce and johnpur - I would suggest that if we're going to proliferate community communication resources (forums, QNA, ML, etc), that we really drive forward an *integration* effort across those | 19:23 |
| jmckenty | e.g., everyone who wants a new tool needs to step up and help moderate content ACROSS tools | 19:24 |
| jmckenty | pulling discussions out of forums and adding them to QnA, etc | 19:24 |
| eday | jmckenty: I would say free as in beer and source code | 19:24 |
| johnpur | my fear is that if the communication channels are wide open that we may have scoping issues | 19:24 |
| jmckenty | in my experience, more tools is not necessarily better, and I think we should push pretty hard on the ownership and management aspects of these - not just selection and install | 19:25 |
| jmckenty | johnpur: I agree on the scoping issues as well | 19:25 |
| vishy | I'm pretty happy about the QnA site idea | 19:25 |
| vishy | i find launchpad questions to be pretty annoying | 19:25 |
| jmckenty | Who owns it, then - spector? | 19:25 |
| ttx | vishy: yes, we need something that allows the best questions and the best answers to be very apparent | 19:26 |
| jmckenty | or is that something that anne gentle can help with? | 19:26 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: for now spectorclan can be designated the owner. longer term i am looking to bring in a technical community manager that should pick this up. | 19:26 |
| jmckenty | can we take the most vocal proponents of both QnA and Forums, plus Spector, plus Gentle, and call that a "Community tools working group"? | 19:27 |
| vishy | ttx: and allows questions and answers to be edited later when things change | 19:27 |
| jmckenty | johnpur: I have an awesome candidate for you | 19:27 |
| johnpur | send the name along, with contact info! | 19:27 |
| ttx | jmckenty: we all have :) | 19:27 |
| johnpur | next week i am going full court press on finding the right person | 19:27 |
| jmckenty | really? If you have awesome candidates for ANYTHING, you should be emailing me ;) | 19:27 |
| jmckenty | sorry, OT | 19:28 |
| ttx | jmckenty: heh | 19:28 |
| jmckenty | back, to my other point - anyone second calling this a working group? | 19:28 |
| jmckenty | I'm really concerned about an Ad-hoc approach here, I think we'll end up with shark tank | 19:28 |
| ttx | jmckenty: I think we can ask on the ML for QnA lovers | 19:28 |
| jmckenty | http://brandonhays.com/blog/2011/05/03/why-i-still-dont-contribute-to-open-source/ | 19:28 |
| ttx | to set up the core moderator group | 19:29 |
| ttx | someone with experience with QnA would be a + | 19:29 |
| jmckenty | ttx: +1 | 19:29 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: +1 to setting up some structure around community tools | 19:29 |
| vishy | I'm willing to contribute a lot to answers on the site | 19:30 |
| johnpur | i can take this and organize | 19:30 |
| jbryce | #action johnpur to organize a community tools working group | 19:30 |
| * vishy is tired of being asked the same questions over and over | 19:30 | |
| jmckenty | vishy: I'm much less worried about answers than I am about cross-tool collaboration | 19:30 |
| jmckenty | e.g., pulling discussions from ML and Forum and turning them into QnA, and sending QnA pointers to the ML | 19:30 |
| ttx | johnpur: you'll push an email to ML asking for volunteers to admin the QnA site ? | 19:30 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: define cross-tool collaboration? | 19:30 |
| jmckenty | also making sure the THEMES / HEADERS for the various sites all link to each other | 19:31 |
| anotherjesse | vishy: what do you want for lunch? vishy: want to get a drink, .... ;) | 19:31 |
| jmckenty | e.g., like having one schedule for the conferences | 19:31 |
| ttx | jmckenty: that can be a group of moderators from each media | 19:31 |
| jbryce | johnpur: you might want to follow up directly with everett as well since he actually went to the effort to propose it | 19:31 |
| jmckenty | as long as they work together, yes <-- ttx | 19:31 |
| johnpur | jbryce: agree | 19:31 |
| ttx | I prefer several groups working with each other, rahter than a single group being expoert in forums+QnA | 19:31 |
| vishy | anotherjesse: probably, asking those questions would be more effective if you did them through the site | 19:31 |
| vishy | :p | 19:32 |
| johnpur | ttx: we will figure out the right structure | 19:32 |
| jmckenty | k, last request, then: | 19:32 |
| jmckenty | can we make sure the set of community tools is an openstack project | 19:32 |
| jmckenty | with a buglist | 19:32 |
| jmckenty | a release schedule | 19:32 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: i'm going to hold you to that | 19:32 |
| jmckenty | and a PTL? | 19:32 |
| jmckenty | :p | 19:32 |
| jmckenty | There have been community complaints about not being able to get bugs on the .org site fixed | 19:33 |
| jmckenty | And I think a "patches-welcome" approach to these tools *might* help | 19:33 |
| johnpur | jmckenty: this becomes somewhat of a meta-project... specifically, getting changes to openstack.org is a challenge, as it is not editable by the community. | 19:34 |
| ttx | hmm... not sure there is enough commonality on the tools | 19:34 |
| johnpur | let me think about this, i will report back next week | 19:34 |
| ttx | rather have several separate ways to track requests | 19:34 |
| jmckenty | well, they're bug reports, not requests | 19:35 |
| jbryce | ok | 19:35 |
| jmckenty | that's the mindset issue that I'm bringing up | 19:35 |
| jmckenty | if you think of them as community resources, and the community wants to fix something, it's a bug | 19:36 |
| jmckenty | not a request to RAX | 19:36 |
| johnpur | i will say that some of this crosses over intot he realm of how the openstack assets are managed, who controls what, etc. | 19:36 |
| jmckenty | yes, exactly. But we're proliferating those assets | 19:36 |
| johnpur | we need to provide more clarity here | 19:36 |
| jmckenty | without having defined the controls | 19:37 |
| johnpur | jbryce: another action, for you and me to work on together? | 19:37 |
| jmckenty | can I again push back and suggest you include a non-RAX person in that? | 19:37 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 19:38 | |
| johnpur | volunteers? | 19:38 |
| jmckenty | just for outsider perspective | 19:38 |
| jbryce | #action jbryce, johnpur work on tracking/managment of openstack.org and new community properties | 19:38 |
| jmckenty | I nominate ewanmellor ;) | 19:38 |
| jmckenty | But I'll take it if he doesn't | 19:38 |
| jmckenty | :) | 19:38 |
| jbryce | we'll loop you in | 19:39 |
| jbryce | let's keep moving | 19:39 |
| jbryce | #topic Pre-Announced vs. Dynamic milestone plan for core projects | 19:39 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Pre-Announced vs. Dynamic milestone plan for core projects" | 19:39 | |
| jbryce | ttx: want to lead this one? | 19:39 |
| ttx | yep | 19:39 |
| ttx | I've been working on the release schedule for Diablo for approval by the PPB | 19:40 |
| ttx | It can be seen at http://wiki.openstack.org/DiabloReleaseSchedule | 19:40 |
| ttx | As you can see we have a full milestone plan for Nova and Glance | 19:40 |
| ttx | But just the "next milestone" for Swift. | 19:40 |
| ttx | The question is: do we accept, for core projects, some restricted visibility on the milestone plan | 19:40 |
| ttx | notmyname will probably elaborate on Swift team's position, which wants to be able to set the next milestone date and version number a few weeks before its delivery | 19:41 |
| ttx | I think this affects openness and transparency: potential contributors, as well as downstream users (other than rackspace) would get restricted information | 19:41 |
| ttx | It also drifts from our principle of time-based milestones | 19:41 |
| ttx | so I was wondering if that was ok with the PPB, and we can ack the schedule as is | 19:42 |
| ttx | if yes, let me know if I can consider the release schedule, as presented, "confirmed" :) | 19:43 |
| eday | I thought we previously decided that PTLs can determine their own schedule as long as they may the large integration releases, so are you proposing we possibly remove that previous decision and push for more schedule governance? | 19:43 |
| jbryce | i know we have a principle of time-based releases, but did we have a principle of time-based interim milestones? | 19:44 |
| vishy | i don't really mind. I think it makes sense for a project that is essentially feature complete | 19:44 |
| notmyname | whew. sounds like I may not have to give my speech ;-) | 19:44 |
| ttx | eday: we decided that they could come with the plan they want, not that the plan could be dynamic | 19:44 |
| ttx | eday: but we can decide that dynamic milestone plan is ok :) | 19:45 |
| eday | ahh, ok | 19:45 |
| johnpur | the major issue with not declaring the plan up front is lack of direction tot he community | 19:45 |
| johnpur | making it hard for outside folks to contribute | 19:46 |
| ttx | johnpur: right, it's not the best way to attract contributors | 19:46 |
| jmckenty | that sounds like a topic for the design summit | 19:46 |
| notmyname | plans for the entire release (eg diablo) are still announced | 19:46 |
| ttx | johnpur: also makes yout roadmap a bit less readable | 19:46 |
| jmckenty | e.g., I don't think we've been asked yet to provide more structure on per-project milestones, isn't that really a PTL ballywhak? | 19:46 |
| jbryce | i would expect most of the community to be planning around the releases anyway, especially on a more mature project | 19:46 |
| ttx | ok, we can try that and see in 6 months how well it flew. | 19:47 |
| johnpur | jbryce: perhaps | 19:47 |
| jbryce | i think i'd prefer to leave it up to the PTL and see if it actually does create barriers to entry or contribution | 19:47 |
| johnpur | but RAX is not following this on their production pushes. Why would we think that Internap or other SP's deploying Swift would not want to track interim features and push asap? | 19:48 |
| ttx | johnpur: good point | 19:49 |
| johnpur | at least have an idea when features will show up in a stable version of trunk | 19:49 |
| jbryce | notmyname: do you have any plan for handling the other milestones or the features that aren't in the first one? | 19:50 |
| notmyname | yes | 19:50 |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:50 | |
| notmyname | we plan to track features in diablo | 19:50 |
| notmyname | and as they near completion we will be able to better set dates for milestones | 19:51 |
| ttx | notmyname: so it's feature-based milestones and time-based releases ? | 19:51 |
| notmyname | my goal is to have milestones roughly every 4-6 weeks with an announcement of them 2-4 weeks ahead of time | 19:51 |
| notmyname | ttx: yes | 19:52 |
| jbryce | is there a way for others to track that? to see what features are being worked/nearing completion? | 19:52 |
| eday | jbryce: status on blueprints targetted for diablo | 19:52 |
| ttx | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/diablo | 19:53 |
| jbryce | ok...well perhaps we should take an actual vote on approving the diablo schedule as stands with dynamic milestones for swift | 19:55 |
| ttx | notmyname: any reason why you can't use monthly milestones, and just let the features that are in be delivered in the next milestone ? | 19:55 |
| ttx | notmyname: is it that it delays features delivery in milestones too much in corner cases ? | 19:55 |
| notmyname | I'd argue that it actually reduces transparency for the releases we have | 19:55 |
| ttx | notmyname: explain? | 19:56 |
| notmyname | if the PPB declares, we can do time-based releases. we'd prefer not two. we have 2 reasons for this | 19:56 |
| notmyname | s/two/to | 19:57 |
| notmyname | 1) letting the project have more autonomy and more control over it's interim releases | 19:57 |
| notmyname | 2) if we do time-based releases, it will not line up with the internal releases we do here. what that means is that we will be forced to have "Secret" releases | 19:58 |
| dendrobates | damn, the meeting is on my google calendar for now. How did I get an hour off? | 19:58 |
| johnpur | notmyname: can you explain your internal release rythym? | 19:59 |
| jbryce | dendrobates: it's been updated on the google calendar, but it seems like the invite did not get updated for some people | 19:59 |
| notmyname | for example, we are currently running 1.3.0-7 right now. it's a release, but a "secret" one because it's not part of a milestone. we would like to be more open about the official releases and have them line up better with the milestones | 19:59 |
| eday | notmyname: is it possible to adjust internal releases to the public openstack cycles? | 19:59 |
| notmyname | not as much as I'd like because there are more people involved (ops, qa, product) | 20:00 |
| ttx | notmyname: I fear that alignment with RS operational needs will ultimately lead to milestones being announced at the very last moment | 20:01 |
| ttx | notmyname: though I understand your will to not duplicae QA | 20:01 |
| ttx | duplicate | 20:02 |
| notmyname | I think it's a valid concern. and I don't want to tie swift to RAX. but I also think that we can commit to not doing that. working with these groups at rax and (hopefully) others outside of rax, i can get a good feel of what and when a release should be | 20:02 |
| jbryce | i'm still on the side of letting swift try the dynamic milestone plan for now | 20:03 |
| jbryce | looking at the blueprint link, you can see that there's not an unending list of features to sift through | 20:03 |
| notmyname | historically, we have not fallen into the feature-based-releases-never-ship trap, so in part, I'd like to only solve that issue when/if we actually have it | 20:03 |
| jbryce | and if it becomes a problem, i'm sure we'll hear complaints about it and can adjust | 20:03 |
| ttx | I'm ok with trying this and reconsider at next design summit. | 20:04 |
| ttx | We'll see how well it flew by then. | 20:04 |
| jbryce | yep | 20:04 |
| notmyname | agreed. ttx and I talked for a while about bridging the RAX-openstack release cycle gap before coming to this plan. I like it more that ttx does, but I think it will work | 20:04 |
| ttx | jbryce: can the PPB approve the release schedule as it stands ? | 20:05 |
| jbryce | +1 from me | 20:05 |
| eday | +1 | 20:06 |
| ttx | that means setting Sep 22 as the release date | 20:06 |
| ttx | +1 from me, obviously :) | 20:06 |
| notmyname | +1 | 20:06 |
| eday | (and lets revisit after release to see how things worked out) | 20:06 |
| vishy | +1 | 20:06 |
| johnpur | +1 on setting Sep 22 as the date, +0 on having core projects that cannot project timelines over the course of the next announced release (6 month window) | 20:07 |
| jbryce | #agreed Diable release schedule approved: http://wiki.openstack.org/DiabloReleaseSchedule | 20:08 |
| jbryce | #topic Other topics | 20:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Other topics" | 20:08 | |
| * ttx sets status to "approved" | 20:08 | |
| johnpur | what is going to happen when i go to the ptl's and ask for a 12 month roadmap projection? or ask about a +12m vision for their project? BTW, this is coming at you guys... :) | 20:08 |
| * jbryce hears crickets | 20:09 | |
| * vishy hides | 20:09 | |
| jbryce | that's going to be hard to do with time-based milestones or not | 20:09 |
| johnpur | an action that came out of the ds was a strong desire for guidance past the upcoming release... | 20:10 |
| vishy | not sure how to approach that exactly | 20:10 |
| jbryce | right, but i don't know that time-based milestones is a solution for that. you're looking at multiple 6-month releases at that point | 20:10 |
| vishy | I don't really see the value of planning outside of customer feedback for > 6 months | 20:10 |
| johnpur | people are betting their businesses on openstack, they deserve some visibility into the future, business does not run with 6 month visibility windows | 20:11 |
| jbryce | which will be fuzzy, for sure, but also i would say we try to connect as much as possible to releases rather than milestones | 20:11 |
| vishy | we haven't come accross any features that need more than six months unless you count slippage | 20:11 |
| johnpur | lol | 20:11 |
| vishy | :) | 20:11 |
| johnpur | vishy: federation? | 20:11 |
| dendrobates | johnpur: they want influence not visibility | 20:11 |
| johnpur | vishy: workload portability? | 20:11 |
| johnpur | vishy: advanced networking? | 20:12 |
| johnpur | etc | 20:12 |
| ttx | johnpur: will be difficult to get with 6-month elected PTLs | 20:12 |
| johnpur | dendrobates: visibility implies discussion, ie influence | 20:12 |
| vishy | those are all not available in this 6 month window | 20:13 |
| vishy | but i don't think they require > 6 months to implement | 20:13 |
| johnpur | vishy: my point! | 20:13 |
| vishy | I don't think we can maintain our idea of design summits planning for next release if we are planning features out at that scale | 20:13 |
| ttx | It's difficult already to get a clear feature plan for diablo... ;) | 20:13 |
| eday | I wonder how useful a feature list beyond diablo would be? trying to take into account current task slippage, no discussions around those featuers until E design summit, etc. Even if I had that list, I wouldn't bet any business on it :) | 20:14 |
| johnpur | it is important that we give guidance to the vision and direction, even if we need to wait 1 or 2 ds cycles to get to the implementation | 20:14 |
| vishy | eday: I agree. It is just imaginary feature planning | 20:14 |
| jbryce | i think it would be impossible to give people dates on any of that, but the thing that people are looking for is direction and some approximation | 20:14 |
| johnpur | i will stop now :) | 20:14 |
| johnpur | but ptls... you are forwarned! | 20:15 |
| jbryce | they'd like to know if thing X is even something people are thinking about | 20:15 |
| vishy | johnpur: we can make stuff up and call it "marketing" but i don't see any real value from an implementation perspective | 20:15 |
| jbryce | and something like the networking services is definitely going to extend beyond diablo | 20:15 |
| notmyname | in that case, make a blueprint for it and don't target it to a series yet | 20:15 |
| ttx | johnpur: each dev group can have their own +12m roadmap | 20:16 |
| ttx | but the project, in itself, would be hard-pressed to guarantee it | 20:16 |
| jbryce | blueprints that aren't targeted are fine | 20:16 |
| johnpur | vishy: agree to disagree. if we do not succeed in federating os clouds it will be a fail. this is not imaginary, just not being implemented currently. | 20:16 |
| ttx | johnpur: I think "Ozone" for example, can have a +12m plan. They know their resources and what they want to work on | 20:17 |
| vishy | johnpur: what value does saying that it is a planned feature if we can't implement it though outside of marketing? | 20:17 |
| ttx | "OpenStack" ? not so much | 20:17 |
| vishy | Large features are dependent on an actual implementation team/group | 20:17 |
| ttx | I mean, nobody knows what will be in the Linux kernel in one year. | 20:18 |
| ttx | though lots of companies are betting their business on it. | 20:18 |
| vishy | I can say that we plan on federating in 12 months, but without a team to back it up, it is kind of useless imo... | 20:18 |
| vishy | vishy: I'm happy to do it for marketing reasons though :) | 20:18 |
| jbryce | it's not just marketing | 20:18 |
| *** jmckenty has quit IRC | 20:18 | |
| johnpur | vishy: it gives direction to current implementations, if there are dependencies or potential side effects | 20:18 |
| jbryce | it will encourage people to pitch in on the things they care about | 20:19 |
| ttx | jbryce: I need to go now... | 20:19 |
| johnpur | i believe the networking effort is a good example of this | 20:19 |
| jbryce | ttx: ok | 20:19 |
| jbryce | actually i have to head off as well | 20:19 |
| vishy | johnpur: I am much more confident in fast iterations in an agile style, but we can try to come up with a rough 12m+ roadmap | 20:20 |
| jbryce | thanks for joining everyone | 20:20 |
| johnpur | vishy: thx | 20:20 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 20:20 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 20:20 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu May 19 20:20:57 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:20 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-05-19-19.03.html | 20:21 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-05-19-19.03.txt | 20:21 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-05-19-19.03.log.html | 20:21 |
| johnpur | to be clear, beyond n and n+1 releases we leave the realm of "roadmaps" and start talking about "vision" | 20:22 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 20:29 | |
| *** katkee has quit IRC | 20:52 | |
| *** hub_cap has quit IRC | 21:46 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 21:59 | |
| *** ovidwu_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:08 | |
| *** _0x44 has quit IRC | 22:13 | |
| *** ovidwu has quit IRC | 22:13 | |
| *** anotherjesse has quit IRC | 22:14 | |
| *** _0x44 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:18 | |
| *** _0x44 has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| *** _0x44 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:19 | |
| *** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:26 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| *** edconzel_ has quit IRC | 22:30 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 22:43 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 22:43 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 22:45 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** nerens has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 23:08 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!