| *** yamahata_lt has quit IRC | 00:00 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** eperdomo has quit IRC | 00:24 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:29 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 00:30 | |
| *** yamahata__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:31 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 00:31 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 00:32 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:43 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 00:47 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 00:54 | |
| *** Binbin has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:20 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:32 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 01:45 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:01 | |
| *** errr has left #openstack-meeting | 02:11 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 02:18 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:38 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 02:53 | |
| *** sandywalsh has quit IRC | 03:24 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:56 | |
| *** Binbin is now known as Binbin_afk | 03:57 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 04:45 | |
| *** Binbin_afk is now known as Binbin | 04:54 | |
| *** Arminder-Office has quit IRC | 05:40 | |
| *** Binbin is now known as Binbin_afk | 05:57 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 06:42 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 06:47 | |
| *** Binbin_afk has quit IRC | 07:20 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 07:25 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 09:43 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:07 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 11:18 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:21 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:47 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 12:05 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 12:53 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:24 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 13:41 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:41 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 13:43 | |
| *** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:43 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:56 | |
| *** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:32 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:47 | |
| *** gelbuhos has quit IRC | 14:47 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 14:48 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:03 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 15:20 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 15:21 | |
| *** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:46 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 15:59 | |
| *** med_out is now known as medberry | 16:17 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 17:15 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:33 | |
| *** JordanRinke_afk is now known as JordanRinke | 18:29 | |
| *** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:52 | |
| *** markvoelker1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:00 | |
| notmyname | ppb meeting now? | 19:00 |
|---|---|---|
| jbryce | yes | 19:00 |
| jbryce | who's here? | 19:00 |
| notmyname | *crickets* | 19:02 |
| jbryce | no joke | 19:02 |
| * heckj lurking | 19:02 | |
| jaypipes | o/ | 19:03 |
| ewanmellor | o/ | 19:03 |
| notmyname | so this meeting was bumped up? perhaps people think it's later | 19:03 |
| jbryce | it's been at 2:00 on thursdays for about a month | 19:03 |
| jbryce | i'll send another reminder to the list | 19:04 |
| soren | I thought it was cancelled? | 19:04 |
| jbryce | that was last week's | 19:04 |
| dendrobates | is the meeting mow? | 19:04 |
| soren | I thought this one was, too. | 19:04 |
| jbryce | nope. thierry and john said they couldn't make it, but i didn't see anything about canceling this one | 19:05 |
| dendrobates | so is there a meeting? | 19:05 |
| jbryce | we're one short of a quorum right now | 19:06 |
| jbryce | what i'd really like to do is vote on the incubation process so we can get that kicked off | 19:06 |
| jbryce | i suppose with thierry and john's absentee ballot approvals and 6 of us we can proceed | 19:06 |
| jbryce | #startmeeting | 19:06 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Jun 2 19:06:48 2011 UTC. The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:06 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 19:06 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB - agenda is listed there | 19:07 |
| jbryce | most of this has already been discussed on the list so we should be able to move pretty quickly through it | 19:07 |
| jbryce | #topic core project promotion only for releases | 19:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "core project promotion only for releases" | 19:08 | |
| jbryce | Thierry's proposal was that projects can only be promoted to core for the following release cycle rather than allowing it in the middle of a cycle. Seemed like most people agreed with that | 19:08 |
| dendrobates | +1 to thierry's recommendation | 19:08 |
| vishy | ho/ | 19:08 |
| vishy | +1 | 19:09 |
| jbryce | I updated the new project process to include the following language to make this the policy: | 19:09 |
| jbryce | "Once a project is approved for addition as an core project, it will be promoted in the next release cycle. All projects must be approved for promotion to core 6 weeks before a release cycle's design summit. After approval, a new PTL will be elected for the project in the regular PTL election cycle." | 19:09 |
| jbryce | +1 from me as well | 19:09 |
| notmyname | +1 | 19:09 |
| ewanmellor | +1 | 19:09 |
| soren | +1 | 19:09 |
| jbryce | #agreed Projects will only be promoted to core for the following release cycle as stated in the updated new project process | 19:10 |
| jbryce | #topic incubation process policies | 19:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "incubation process policies" | 19:10 | |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes | 19:11 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/Incubation | 19:11 |
| jbryce | http://wiki.openstack.org/Projects/IncubatorApplication | 19:11 |
| jbryce | Those 3 documents together lay out the purpose and process for a project applying and being approved to be an official incubation project | 19:11 |
| dendrobates | jbryce: has you discussed the incubation process with RS legal. At some point we need to make sure all previous contributers have signed the CLA, right? | 19:11 |
| jbryce | we've discussed most of them but have made a number of iterative changes over the past few weeks and i'd like to actually get a vote on them on record | 19:12 |
| jbryce | dendrobates: good point. i will make sure that is part of the process. | 19:12 |
| jbryce | #action Make sure incubation projects follow CLA procedures and previous contributors have agreed to CLA | 19:12 |
| vishy | If the project is not approved, it may continue as an incubated project? | 19:13 |
| jbryce | if the project is not approved for core? we previously said yes | 19:13 |
| vishy | no that is on incubation page | 19:13 |
| jbryce | ahh...that's in reference to step for--the application for core promotion | 19:14 |
| jbryce | i will make that more clear | 19:14 |
| jbryce | updated | 19:14 |
| vishy | cool | 19:15 |
| vishy | +1 from me | 19:15 |
| dendrobates | +1 | 19:15 |
| ewanmellor | +1 | 19:15 |
| notmyname | seems to me that there should be some explicit provision for removing an incubated project | 19:15 |
| notmyname | is that "If the project fails to make progress..."? | 19:15 |
| jbryce | yes | 19:16 |
| jbryce | it's basically PPB discretion | 19:16 |
| notmyname | so what are the changes you are making? | 19:16 |
| * jaypipes reading back.. | 19:16 | |
| jbryce | i changed #5 | 19:16 |
| jbryce | from "If the project is not approved, it may continue as an incubated project" to "If the project is not approved by the Policy Board to be promoted to a core project, it may continue as an incubated project" | 19:17 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: typo on #6: s/may remove is/may remove it/ | 19:17 |
| soren | Sorry, just catching up a bit here. | 19:18 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: thanks. fixed. | 19:18 |
| soren | The CLA is an agreement between the contributor and who else? | 19:18 |
| jaypipes | I think it would be useful to mention what the *benefit* of being in an incubated status is on that document | 19:18 |
| soren | I don't remember and don't have a copy at hand. | 19:18 |
| dendrobates | soren: rackspace | 19:19 |
| notmyname | +1 on the docs | 19:19 |
| notmyname | jaypipes: that's covered in http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes | 19:19 |
| jbryce | soren: http://wiki.openstack.org/CLA | 19:19 |
| jaypipes | notmyname: oh, doh. thx :) | 19:19 |
| soren | So if some other entity (be it corporate or otherwise) has a project that ends up in openstack, their contributors have to sign an agreement with *Rackspace* because... | 19:19 |
| dendrobates | soren: patent protections mainly, I believe | 19:20 |
| jaypipes | Is there going to be a wiki or web page that lists projects that are in incubated status? | 19:20 |
| jbryce | soren: it's between the contributor and OpenStack LLC (owned by Rackspace right now) because OpenStack LLC is the Project Manager who is actually granting the Apache License on OpenStack projects | 19:20 |
| notmyname | soren: OpenStack, LLC | 19:20 |
| soren | dendrobates: So why don't we sign a similar agreement with everyone else involved? | 19:20 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: yes. i will add a section to wiki.openstack.org/Projects | 19:20 |
| notmyname | dendrobates: patents are covered in the apache license | 19:20 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: coolio. | 19:20 |
| dendrobates | notmyname: but that is not valid in every country unless specifically agreed to, hence the CLA | 19:21 |
| dendrobates | or so I understand from the lawyers | 19:21 |
| jbryce | the CLA explicitly grants OpenStack LLC the write to perpetually release the code under Apache for all contributions the contributor makes | 19:21 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: one more typo on last paragraph: s/have successfully release/have successfully released/ | 19:21 |
| soren | I don't think it's clear at all that OpenStack is a legal entity. | 19:21 |
| jbryce | dendrobates: correct | 19:21 |
| soren | and even less so that it's owned by Rackspace. | 19:21 |
| notmyname | I felt that was pretty explicitly talked about in the initial business sessions at the summit | 19:22 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: thanks for the proofreading. i'm usually the grammar nazi. = ) | 19:22 |
| jaypipes | :) np | 19:22 |
| dendrobates | soren: I agree that should be more clear in the doc, but it is referred to as a LLc which is a legal entity | 19:22 |
| soren | But I guess that's a discussion for another day. It just seems weird to require legally binding agreements to add code to openstack. | 19:22 |
| soren | dendrobates: I don't just mean in the agreement, but more generally. | 19:23 |
| notmyname | +1 that it could be made more clear in official docs | 19:23 |
| notmyname | also +1 that it's a discussion for a different day :-) | 19:23 |
| soren | Yeah. | 19:23 |
| jbryce | yes | 19:24 |
| dendrobates | is it another day yet? :) | 19:24 |
| dendrobates | jk | 19:24 |
| jaypipes | this last line: "In general, a project will need to have successfully release at least two milestones before it will be considered as a core project." I think it may be better to be more specific on that. Perhaps something like: "Project must have made at least 2 consistent, regular milestone releases. Project must participate in an integration release (6 month release cycle), the first of which will be considered | 19:24 |
| soren | :) | 19:24 |
| jaypipes | alpha-quality)" Or something like that? | 19:24 |
| jaypipes | basically, I'm keen to make more specific the way the incubated project treats *the first integrated release* | 19:25 |
| jaypipes | and how the other core projects treat the incubated project during the integrated release... | 19:25 |
| jbryce | because the integrated releases only happen every 6 months, that would push core promotion out an additional 6 months if they have to go through an entire integrated release as well, right? | 19:26 |
| jaypipes | what are the specific expectations for each of the parties involved? Is the release manager responsible for treating incubated projects differently during integration release time? | 19:26 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: well, I guess I'm saying that if Lunr releases 2 milestone releases, but doesn't participate in the integration release, I don't think they should become core. But if they *do* participate in the integration release, I think they would.. | 19:27 |
| jbryce | as laid out currently, they would have to meet all requirements for promotion and be approved by the ppb 6 weeks before a release cycle design summit | 19:27 |
| jaypipes | Lunr is just an example here of course, nothing more. | 19:27 |
| jbryce | then, starting the next release cycle, they would be core and in the process through the entire 6 months | 19:27 |
| jbryce | so taking lunr, they would not be able to be in diablo and would need to be approved 6 months before the design summit this fall | 19:28 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: yeah, I'm trying to suggest one of those PPB promotion requirements is participation in the integration release process :) | 19:28 |
| jbryce | if approved, their first core release would be e next spring which would be managed by the release manager through the entire 6 months cycle | 19:28 |
| jaypipes | jbarratt_: in other words, how can we promote a project to core that hasn't demonstrated "integratability" | 19:28 |
| jaypipes | ? | 19:28 |
| jmckenty | ah, gotcha | 19:28 |
| jmckenty | jaypipes: do we need a "transitional" state? | 19:29 |
| jbryce | so you're saying they couldn't be core until F, but we would treat them as core from a release perspective in e? | 19:29 |
| jmckenty | where the project is pending-core, but does not have an integrated release out yet? | 19:29 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: maybe, but I don't necessarily think so. I just think one of the promotion requirements should be a plan for integration and demonstrated participation in the area of integration. | 19:29 |
| notmyname | jmckenty: isn't that incubator? | 19:29 |
| jmckenty | no | 19:29 |
| jmckenty | I think a lot of incubated projects might never become core | 19:30 |
| jbryce | i think with 6 month releases, this pushes it out too far | 19:30 |
| jbryce | i'd rather put a specific requirement in like jaypipes says around integration | 19:30 |
| jmckenty | k | 19:30 |
| jbryce | but not necessarily make it a requirement that they go through an entire integration release before they get promoted | 19:30 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: I'm just saying that "Integration with OpenStack processes around testing, releases, and community management" may be a bit vague and proposed projects might appreciate a bit more detail on what we expect from them regarding integration. | 19:31 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: sure. | 19:31 |
| jmckenty | well, I can see confusion if they're listed as an openstack core project, but they're not yet available in an official release | 19:31 |
| jmckenty | or am I misreading that | 19:32 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: i think we can make that clear in the messaging around the releases | 19:32 |
| jaypipes | jmckenty: How can a project be core that hasn't demonstrated its ability to be integrated into the official distribution? | 19:32 |
| jmckenty | jaypipes: which official distribution? ;) | 19:32 |
| jbryce | jaypipes: something like this: "In general, a project will need to have successfully released at least two milestones and demonstrated a satisfactory level of integration with existing core projects before it will be considered as a core project." | 19:32 |
| jbryce | ? | 19:33 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: good. | 19:33 |
| jbryce | ok | 19:33 |
| jmckenty | sure. Maybe we can use that to promote openstack-common ;) | 19:33 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: of course "what is a satisfactory level of integration" is the next question a project lead will ask ;) | 19:33 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: so we should spend some time over the next few months to brainstorm what we mean by that. | 19:34 |
| jbryce | i think there will be a lot of variance between different types of projects. some of it will have to just be PPB discretion. | 19:34 |
| jaypipes | jbryce: but leaving it right now with that language is good for me. | 19:34 |
| jaypipes | good with me... | 19:34 |
| jmckenty | +1 | 19:34 |
| jbryce | agreed that we should flesh out more of an evaluation checklist for core consideration | 19:34 |
| jbryce | revote on the 3 incubation documents? | 19:34 |
| jmckenty | #vote +1 | 19:34 |
| jaypipes | #vote +1 | 19:34 |
| dendrobates | #vote +1 | 19:35 |
| jbryce | +1 | 19:35 |
| notmyname | #vote +1 | 19:35 |
| ewanmellor | #vote +1 | 19:35 |
| vishy | #vote +1 | 19:35 |
| jmckenty | woot | 19:35 |
| jaypipes | soren? | 19:36 |
| soren | Sorry, got distracted. | 19:36 |
| soren | +1 | 19:36 |
| jbryce | #agreed Approved incubation project documents | 19:36 |
| jbryce | #action jbryce to notify list of incubation process | 19:36 |
| jbryce | #topic Addition of Dashboard for OpenStack and Scalr as core projects | 19:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Addition of Dashboard for OpenStack and Scalr as core projects" | 19:37 | |
| jmckenty | ooh, fun | 19:37 |
| jmckenty | Do we have an application that matches the new process? | 19:37 |
| jmckenty | Or can we push back and ask for that? | 19:37 |
| jbryce | exactly | 19:38 |
| jmckenty | I'm assuming devcamcar is proposed PTL for dashboard | 19:38 |
| jmckenty | and stadil is proposed PTL for Scalr | 19:38 |
| jmckenty | but I'd love docs around license, codebase and repo, etc | 19:38 |
| jbryce | based off that and the earlier decision to not promote projects in the middle of a release cycle, it seems like we should defer for now and request them to either enter incubation or to apply towards the end of the cycle? | 19:38 |
| jmckenty | Well, I can see Scalr taking a substantial amount of debate | 19:39 |
| vishy | i thought dash was applying for incubation | 19:39 |
| jmckenty | both on the language issues and the guest agent aspects | 19:39 |
| dendrobates | jmckenty: me too | 19:39 |
| jmckenty | so I would recommend they apply early | 19:39 |
| jaypipes | yeah | 19:39 |
| jmckenty | if dashboard is applying for incubation, I think we could get devcamcar to fill out the app pretty quickly | 19:40 |
| jbryce | vishy: according to his openstack list email, it sounds like he wanted to move to core | 19:40 |
| jbryce | i can respond to both and ask them to fill out incubation application. i'm sure they'll respond pretty quickly. | 19:40 |
| jbryce | is that the route we want to go? | 19:40 |
| vishy | yes | 19:41 |
| jmckenty | I think so | 19:41 |
| vishy | I think incubation is the best for both | 19:41 |
| notmyname | application for incubation :-) | 19:41 |
| jbryce | ok | 19:41 |
| jbryce | #action jbryce to contact dashboard and scalr and request they apply for incubation | 19:41 |
| jbryce | #topic Meeting schedule | 19:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Meeting schedule" | 19:42 | |
| jmckenty | can we wait | 19:42 |
| jmckenty | last comment on that | 19:42 |
| jmckenty | can we make sure we have a separate agenda item for each application in the future | 19:42 |
| vishy | the incubation process wasn't totally clear before, but now that we have agreed on it, they should follow it... | 19:42 |
| jmckenty | we may also want to limit the number of apps we consider per meeting, otherwise we could get buried before summits | 19:43 |
| jbryce | jmckenty: agreed | 19:43 |
| jbryce | #info currently the meeting schedule is everything Thursday at 1900UTC/2:00 PM central | 19:43 |
| jmckenty | That still works well for me, mostly | 19:44 |
| jmckenty | Are there concerns? | 19:44 |
| jbryce | i've had a few requests to decrease frequency, which i am ok with | 19:44 |
| jbryce | it seems like we don't always have a full agenda so we've been ad hoc skipping them | 19:44 |
| jmckenty | bi-weekly for 1.5-2 hours? | 19:44 |
| jmckenty | I don't mind ending early, but I would hate to not have enough time | 19:44 |
| jbryce | i'd rather have a fixed schedule that we stick to and have good attendance | 19:44 |
| jbryce | what do others think? bi-weekly? 1-1.5 hours? | 19:45 |
| notmyname | -1 | 19:45 |
| jmckenty | notmyname: what's the thinking? | 19:45 |
| jmckenty | too slow to respond? | 19:45 |
| notmyname | I'd prefer shorter meetings (as needed) normally scheduled weekly as we are currently doing instead of long bi-weekly meetings | 19:46 |
| dendrobates | I'd rather do it every week and have it be shorter | 19:46 |
| jmckenty | side note if anyone wants an irccloud invite, I'm loving it. | 19:47 |
| ewanmellor | I'm OK with this slot, and either weekly or biweekly, as long as we get the calendar entries straight. | 19:47 |
| jmckenty | +0 | 19:47 |
| jbryce | ok | 19:47 |
| jmckenty | I'd prefer an iCal feed | 19:47 |
| jbryce | i'm fine with that as well | 19:47 |
| jaypipes | biweekly. | 19:47 |
| jmckenty | that way I can track cancellations | 19:47 |
| jbryce | there is an ical feed from the google calendar | 19:47 |
| jmckenty | oh, nice :) | 19:47 |
| jbryce | and the google calendar is correct on the time | 19:47 |
| jaypipes | prefer biweekly, but I'm flexible on it :) | 19:48 |
| vishy | +0 | 19:48 |
| soren | I don't particularly enjoy this time slot, fwiw. | 19:48 |
| ewanmellor | I ended up with two entries, one after the other, when the time changed. I presume that feed didn't cancel the first one, or something. | 19:48 |
| jbryce | #info ical feed: https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/6i49nddt8eqqi1kv0uoc8noh94%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics | 19:48 |
| notmyname | ewanmellor: now you have a free hour! | 19:48 |
| jbryce | #info html: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=6i49nddt8eqqi1kv0uoc8noh94%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago | 19:49 |
| soren | I have much more interesting things I could do on a Thursday evening. | 19:49 |
| jmckenty | soren: tmi | 19:49 |
| soren | (9-10 PM) | 19:49 |
| soren | jmckenty: You ain't seen nothing yet. | 19:49 |
| jbryce | i'm a little offended that soren doesn't find us interesting. = ) | 19:49 |
| jmckenty | we could go to 12pm Central (1700UTC) as far as I'm concerned | 19:49 |
| jmckenty | Earlier than that is evil | 19:49 |
| soren | that's even worse. | 19:50 |
| jmckenty | later, then? | 19:50 |
| jbryce | i am completely flexible on timing and happy to try a different time slot if there's one that works, but we haven't seemed to come up with something better | 19:50 |
| soren | Maybe an hour before the weekly openstack meeting? | 19:50 |
| soren | s/an/the/ | 19:50 |
| jmckenty | that's Tuesday, right? | 19:50 |
| soren | It is. | 19:50 |
| jbryce | so 2000 UTC / 3:00 PM central on tuesdays? | 19:50 |
| soren | Yes. | 19:50 |
| soren | I'm working then anyway, because that evening is screwed. | 19:51 |
| jbryce | ok | 19:51 |
| dendrobates | +1 | 19:51 |
| jmckenty | +1 | 19:51 |
| jmckenty | running away now, sorry. | 19:51 |
| jbryce | i'll send a note to the list suggesting that | 19:51 |
| soren | toodles | 19:51 |
| dendrobates | me too, another meeting to prepare for. | 19:51 |
| jbryce | that's all i've got for today anyway | 19:51 |
| ewanmellor | That slot is fine by me. | 19:52 |
| jbryce | any last pressing issues from anyone? | 19:52 |
| jbryce | #action jbryce to send email about new potential PPB meeting time of 2000 UTC on tuesdays | 19:52 |
| jbryce | all right. thanks everyone! | 19:52 |
| jbryce | #endmeeting | 19:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:52 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Jun 2 19:52:38 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:52 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-02-19.06.html | 19:52 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-02-19.06.txt | 19:52 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-02-19.06.log.html | 19:52 |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 19:53 | |
| *** jbryce has quit IRC | 19:54 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 19:54 | |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:13 | |
| *** blamar__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:13 | |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 20:14 | |
| *** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman | 20:24 | |
| *** heckj_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:35 | |
| *** heckj has quit IRC | 20:38 | |
| *** heckj_ has quit IRC | 20:41 | |
| *** markvoelker1 has left #openstack-meeting | 20:54 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 21:09 | |
| *** blamar__ has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| *** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away | 21:26 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| *** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:25 | |
| *** edconzel has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| *** edconzel_ has quit IRC | 22:30 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 22:49 | |
| *** jkoelker has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** jaypipes is now known as jaypipes-afk | 23:01 | |
| *** medberry is now known as med_out | 23:24 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 23:47 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!