16:59:36 <phrobb> #startmeeting TSC
16:59:36 <odl_meetbot> Meeting started Thu Jul 31 16:59:36 2014 UTC.  The chair is phrobb. Information about MeetBot at http://ci.openstack.org/meetbot.html.
16:59:36 <odl_meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:59:36 <odl_meetbot> The meeting name has been set to 'tsc'
16:59:44 <dmm> #info dmm
17:00:05 <phrobb> #topic TSC members please #info in
17:00:09 <regXboi> #info regXboi
17:01:13 <dmm> #info abhijt (dmm for abhijt)
17:02:00 <Madhu> #info Madhu
17:02:31 <kwatsen> #info Kent Watsen
17:02:50 <IvanWood> #info Ivan Wood for Microsoft
17:03:04 <edwarnicke> #info edwarnicke
17:03:50 <phrobb> #chair regXboi colindixon Madhu edwarnicke
17:03:50 <odl_meetbot> Current chairs: Madhu colindixon edwarnicke phrobb regXboi
17:03:59 <dmm> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:Main
17:04:00 * colindixon saunters in 2 minutes early by TSC member time
17:05:37 <phrobb> #topic Event Updates
17:06:12 <phrobb> http://www.opendaylight.org/events/2014-10-14/opendaylight-mini-summit-sdn-openflow-world-congress
17:06:36 <colindixon> #link http://www.opendaylight.org/events/2014-10-14/opendaylight-mini-summit-sdn-openflow-world-congress we are low on submissions for the ODL mini summit in dusseldorf
17:06:44 <colindixon> #info please submit if you will be there
17:06:54 <phrobb> #topic Sys Integration and Testing Update
17:07:05 <abhijit_kumbhare> Joined using Web IRC (due to issues with the IRC client at my hotel wifi) - may have issues
17:07:10 <dlenrow> #info Lenrow
17:08:36 <dmm> thx abhijit
17:11:13 <colindixon> #topic at large elections
17:11:41 <phrobb> %22
17:11:59 <phrobb> %22
17:12:14 <edwarnicke> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:Committer-At-Large_Election_Process
17:12:18 <dmm> thanks
17:12:54 <colindixon> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:2014_Committer-At-Large_TSC_Election and this is likely to be where we produce the results
17:17:24 <colindixon> #info phrobb goes through the process in detail
17:20:04 <colindixon> #info phrobb notes that the only feedback on the process in the last week was from ChrisPriceAB asking if we could make it so that there was time to make sure we know who has turned down the nomination before we vote
17:20:54 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke asks how we will  order people as they’re listed? (suggests alpahbetical by last time)
17:21:52 <IvanWood> What about the name of the company that the people work for.  Should it be grouped by company name also, as there cannot be more than one from a single company?
17:22:15 <IvanWood> Cannot be more than one ELECTED froma a single company
17:22:18 <colindixon> IvanWood: I think the issue was just we wanted a “bias-free” way of listing people
17:23:47 <colindixon> #action phrobb to make the modifications to the at-large election process wiki page and then send a mail to to the TSC asking for people to approve it
17:23:49 * edwarnicke contemplates wheeling out ye-olde-veil-of-ignorance again...
17:23:59 <colindixon> edwarnicke: I will hurt you :p
17:24:10 * tbachman lives in a veil of ignorance
17:24:18 <edwarnicke> colindixon: LOL
17:24:48 <colindixon> #info abhijit_kumbhare asks if we can allow people to pick whether they wanted to be sorted by first or last name, dmm says he’d vastly prefer to not to do something that is non-uniform in sorting
17:26:28 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke says that phrobb should make sure to note in the e-mail that people will not make their company’s platinum representative step down if they are elected
17:28:31 <Youcef> Core members in OpenStack are per project, they are not equivalent to TSC.
17:28:50 <edwarnicke> Youcef: Thank you for that clarifiation :)
17:29:28 <colindixon> #info there is a discussion about whether the nomination process (that is who nominated who and if somebody self-nominated) should be done publicly or privately
17:30:56 <colindixon> #info several other data points are brought up: (1) IETF makes it private, (2) OpenStack PTLs are only self-nominated, (3) OpenStack core developers are nominated in public
17:32:19 <edwarnicke> #info Apache nominations are reported done in private
17:32:38 <colindixon> I kind of like the only self-nominations idea
17:32:50 <colindixon> and allowing people lobby others out of band to nominate themselves if you want
17:33:06 <edwarnicke> Notes that this is much easier on phrobb
17:33:12 <edwarnicke> Which is also goodness
17:33:31 <colindixon> regXboi and dmm also is seem in favor of that
17:34:09 <phrobb> #startvote should the nominations be 1) private, 2) public, or 3) self-nomination-only? 1, 2, 3
17:34:09 <odl_meetbot> Begin voting on: should the nominations be 1) private, 2) public, or 3) self-nomination-only? Valid vote options are 1, 2, 3.
17:34:09 <odl_meetbot> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
17:34:17 <dmm> #vote 3
17:34:20 <edwarnicke> #vote 3
17:34:24 <Madhu> #vote 2
17:34:24 <IvanWood> #vote 3
17:34:28 <dlenrow> #vote 3
17:34:30 <kwatsen> #vote 3
17:34:33 <regXboi> #vote 3
17:34:33 <abhijit_kumbhare> There are advantages to self nominate - #vote 3
17:34:42 <phrobb> #endvote
17:34:42 <odl_meetbot> Voted on "should the nominations be 1) private, 2) public, or 3) self-nomination-only?" Results are
17:34:42 <odl_meetbot> 3 (6): dlenrow, regXboi, dmm, edwarnicke, kwatsen, IvanWood
17:34:42 <odl_meetbot> 2 (1): Madhu
17:34:52 <colindixon> phrobb: I’ll let you #agreed it
17:35:02 <phrobb> #agreed nomination will be done as self-nomination-only
17:35:12 <tbachman> abhijit_kumbhare: for future reference, I think the #vote has to be the first thing on the line
17:35:36 <tbachman> (just as an FYI)
17:35:43 <phrobb> #topic Project Infra and support staff discussion
17:36:19 <abhijit_kumbhare> tbachman: It was a mistake - was writing earlier point before writing # vote
17:36:30 <tbachman> ah :)
17:36:54 <colindixon> #info we’ve seen over the past few weeks (and it’s been discussed at the board) that getting project infrastructure has taken longer than we’d like
17:38:03 <colindixon> #info the core issue is that many feel as though we need to flag budge to hire people and/or acquire infrastructure to help us out and dmm wants to get opinions from the TSC to accurately represent that to the board
17:38:23 <colindixon> #info LuisGomez seconds what dmm said
17:38:38 <edwarnicke> +1
17:38:48 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke says, we need this resolved and please, Please, PLEASE we need a release manager
17:39:05 <Madhu> +1
17:39:17 <Madhu> self-serving infrastructure
17:39:17 <abhijit_kumbhare> +1
17:39:27 <Madhu> Release manager
17:39:30 <edwarnicke> Madhu: LOL... I think the infra should serve us ;)
17:40:03 <Madhu> edwarnicke: :) i mean not to have a single point of blockage :)
17:40:04 <colindixon> #info rocky from huawei says they’re trying to do something to help in the release manager space and that they’ve seen that having a community member be the release manager works well in OpenStack
17:40:11 <Madhu> edwarnicke: i want a VM... i should get it
17:40:14 <colindixon> phrobb: can you #action that?
17:40:14 <edwarnicke> #info it was pointed out that OpenStack has a Release Manager on staff with the foundation
17:40:20 <Madhu> edwarnicke: not open a case and wait !!!
17:40:25 <phrobb> #action probb to put infra and support staff needs on Board agenda for next meeting
17:40:29 <colindixon> edwarnicke: oh I got that wrong
17:40:39 <edwarnicke> colindixon: I though rocky said the opposite,  that the OpenStack foundation employs a Release Manager...
17:40:49 <phrobb> irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/#action phrobb to put infra and support staff needs on Board agenda for next meeting
17:40:52 <colindixon> ….
17:41:13 <colindixon> edwarnicke: I’m not sure, did somebody else catch that
17:41:24 <colindixon> #topic stable hydrogen
17:41:41 <colindixon> #info dmm got ahold of affinity and they asked to not be present in stable hydrogen
17:43:05 <colindixon> #info regXboi says that’s going to complicate cutting those artifacts annoying, but dmm points out that it’s the only thing we can do because we didn’t say participating in hydrogen meant also participating in hydrogen stable as well
17:43:44 <regXboi> #undo
17:43:44 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x2739290>
17:43:55 <colindixon> oh wow
17:43:56 * tbachman learns new meetbot command
17:43:57 <colindixon> that’s a cool command
17:44:14 <regXboi> #info regXboi says that removing affinity has the side effect of requiring new collateral
17:44:16 <tbachman> regXboi: did you actually know that one ?
17:44:22 <regXboi> tbachman: yes
17:44:23 <tbachman> or was that just lucky :)
17:44:25 <tbachman> :D
17:44:27 <tbachman> good!
17:44:29 <edwarnicke> #link https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/9295/ - the patch is ready
17:44:35 <regXboi> tbachman: I've seen it used previously
17:44:40 <tbachman> nice :)
17:45:13 <regXboi> #info dmm points out that we can't hold things against affinity because we didn’t say participating in hydrogen meant also participating in hydrogen stable as well
17:45:33 <colindixon> #info phrobb and others reached out to Defense4All and they have agreed that because their code passes their tests and they’ve made no changes, we can include them in hydrogen stable
17:49:17 <colindixon> #info there is discussion about whether we need to redo all the testing with this new approach, consensus is that we do
17:49:34 <colindixon> do we have the list of lessons learned from Hydrogen/Helium to apply to Lithium?
17:49:41 <colindixon> on the wiki somewhere
17:50:43 <colindixon> I want to make sure to document the expectation of participation in stable releases after the first release
17:50:54 <colindixon> edwarnicke: did you make a wiki page for that or just a mail thread?
17:50:59 <phrobb> #info dmm asks "when do we expect to be finished with reving/testing Hydrogen Stable again?"
17:51:06 <colindixon> phrobb: thanks
17:51:36 <colindixon> #info people say that we’re bogged down in Helium release stuff, so doing full tests may take longer than we’d expect
17:53:31 <phrobb> #info colindixon suggests targetting one week to get the rev/testing of Hydrogen Stable finished (by next Thursday).  edwarnicke notes he is very heads down on Helium.  The Helium M4 milestone is consuming most groups currently
17:53:44 <colindixon> #topic helium packaging
17:53:48 <colindixon> thanks phrobb
17:54:00 <abhijit_kumbhare> Yes - agree with Madhu & edwarnicke - about folks being bogged down by M4/Helium
17:55:49 <colindixon> phrobb: can you state what the proposal was?
17:56:18 <phrobb> which proposal?  sorry
17:56:25 <colindixon> no worries, I’ll do my best
17:56:57 <colindixon> #info the current most concrete proposed plan for release vehicles is to use karaf and let people build distributions out of features (or the component concept we’ve been developing)
17:57:07 <colindixon> #info dmm seeks feedback about this or alternatives from the TSC
17:57:33 <phrobb> @colindixon Thanks
17:59:05 <colindixon> who is on by default matters
17:59:43 <colindixon> edwarnicke: did we agree to that?
17:59:49 <phrobb> #Madhu notes that having a "base edition" composition of karaf features/components is still needed with providing the ability to add the other components.  Then also having an "everything" edition that includes everything.
17:59:56 <colindixon> I mean I agree with it, but I don’t know that *we* the community did
18:00:17 <colindixon> #info Madhu notes that having a "base edition" composition of karaf features/components is still needed with providing the ability to add the other components.  Then also having an "everything" edition that includes everything.
18:00:40 <phrobb> thanks colindixon… I'm all thumbs today
18:00:50 <Madhu> colindixon: i don't want to undo :)
18:00:57 <Madhu> but am not talking about everything edition :)
18:01:08 <Madhu> am talking about providing a feature:install for everything else
18:01:09 <phrobb> ah, OK
18:01:21 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke says that being “on by default” is probably a position that everyone would want, but because of conflicts not everyone can
18:01:37 <colindixon> #undo
18:01:37 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x249c510>
18:01:39 <colindixon> #undo
18:01:39 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x26954d0>
18:02:17 <colindixon> #info Madhu notes that having a "base edition" composition of karaf features/components that works for people would be really good and then let people turn other things on as they choose
18:02:28 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke says that being “on by default” is probably a position that everyone would want, but because of conflicts not everyone can
18:03:39 <edwarnicke> timecheck ?
18:04:16 <colindixon> #info dmm says that the level of flexibility from being able to turn features on and off is great, but how does it affect the testing matrix?
18:05:14 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke says we’ve discussed this over the last few weeks and we decided we would test each feature with *only* the other features it requires and with all features that it doesn’t *explicitly* say it conflicts with
18:07:02 <colindixon> #info discussion continues about whether we can have a base edition that works out of the box or if the political battle for who goes into it will kill us
18:07:20 <colindixon> #info LuisGomez asks if we can at least agree that all projects need to support karaf
18:08:18 <colindixon> #info dmm says we should start a thread on discuss or TSC to drive this forward so that we can make a decision about helium packaging next week
18:08:24 <colindixon> endmeeting?
18:08:32 <phrobb> almost...
18:08:40 <colindixon> :p
18:08:43 <phrobb> #endmeeting