16:58:43 #startmeeting TSC Meeting 4/24/2014 16:58:43 Meeting started Thu Apr 24 16:58:43 2014 UTC. The chair is phrobb. Information about MeetBot at http://ci.openstack.org/meetbot.html. 16:58:43 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:58:43 The meeting name has been set to 'tsc_meeting_4_24_2014' 16:59:03 #topic TSC Members please #info in as you join 16:59:15 #info dmm 16:59:29 #info regXboi (for vijoy today) 16:59:33 #info dbainbri 16:59:36 still trying to get webex to start 17:00:04 agenda #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:Main 17:02:17 #info Chris Wright here 17:02:48 #info Ed Warnicke 17:03:10 ugh, this is taking *forever* 17:03:34 regXboi: I got a nginx bad gateway, but I'm now in 17:04:14 I'm trying to get in ... 17:05:51 #info RobDolin for Rajeev Nagar (Microsoft) 17:06:16 * regXboi thanks tykeal for #startvote/#vote 17:06:19 #chair RobDolin colindixon 17:06:19 Current chairs: RobDolin colindixon phrobb 17:06:20 tykeal: w00t! thanks! 17:06:52 #info regXboi thanks tykeal for #startvote/#vote (publically this time) :) 17:06:56 #info Thanks also Andy / tykeal for helping get the Docs project set-up 17:07:05 #topic Release Manager 17:07:07 +1 to that as well 17:07:21 tick-tock 17:08:55 #info successful first call with Huawei - plan for BOF meet up in Atlanta at OpenStack 17:09:07 is that accurate? 17:09:07 #topic Helium Release Plan 17:09:14 regXboi: clse enough 17:09:17 :) 17:09:26 regXboi: yep, thanks 17:09:29 #info https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Simultaneous_Release:Helium_Release_Plan 17:09:47 #info Chris Price joining 17:11:14 Doesn't each project have a Point Of Contact ??? Why not unicast them ??? 17:11:35 #info Ed Warnicke (Cisco) has heard comments that the volume on discuss is so high that people don't pay attention to it 17:11:35 alagalah: that doesn't work for these new projects 17:12:02 cdub: But if they have gone through the Project Review process... ?? 17:12:21 they allegedly don't know that they need to in any specific timeframe 17:12:21 cdub: Or are you concerned that folks that haven't gone through that process aren't aware there's a deadline ? 17:12:51 alagalah: i'm actually less concerned. ed is concerned, and he keeps finding these people 17:13:29 cdub: Ok ... https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/GettingStarted:Project_Main This should point this out. 17:13:36 cdub: A lot of folks talk to me (from many companies) about wanting to bring projects... so I see it a lot 17:14:11 wow - finally 17:14:17 * regXboi makes the webex 17:14:27 edwarnicke___: push them to the list 17:15:26 #topic Lithium Release Plan 17:16:50 #info Phil: There may be an opportunity for an OpenDaylight Summit in early June at the Hyatt Santa Clara (CA, USA) 17:17:44 #info Ed Warnicke suggests that may work well for design for 4th release 17:18:43 Could someone please #link the text that Phil sent? 17:18:46 did we skip the TSC charter? 17:18:52 ah n/m 17:19:01 #topic TSC Charter Text re: Elections 17:19:18 @Rob: searching for it now 17:19:57 #link https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/tsc/2014-April/001089.html 17:20:04 thnx ed 17:25:02 #info Phil Robb explaining options proposed in email: 17:25:17 #info Option 1 - Remove the "If Otherwise Not Represented" clause from the 17:25:26 #info Option 2 - Allow existing TSC members to run for re-election 17:25:41 #info Option 3 - Do nothing; Leave everything the same and let the voting fall 17:25:48 * edwarnicke___ thinks we need #raisehand :) 17:27:03 * edwarnicke___ observes that regXboi can always talk (and thankfully for us, does :) ) 17:28:14 * observes that regXboi thinks he has more influence today because he has a vote; IMHO he has influence because he has wise input 17:29:43 #info Ryan Moats (IBM) suggests that Option 2 may create a conflict of interest between representing company and representing committers at-large 17:29:54 <- Raises hand 17:31:09 #info regXboi does not like option 2 because if elected from the committer base but bumped my employer's TSC rep, the elected person is in an uncomfortable position of needing to represent the community but having some need to represent the employer 17:31:29 #info Dave Lenrow (HP) suggests there is a one-time offset because we don't have core project PTLs or elected at-large committers 17:33:55 #RobDolin notes that option one is the cleanest and simplest short term solution 17:34:36 * regXboi has to go read 501c6 :) 17:39:06 * dbainbri going to have to drop before discussion on "Root Parent", would like to put my 2 cents in for removing "repository" information from Root Pom and either put it in a settings.xml (which i think is best practice) or at least in a separate pom file from the dependencymanagement (version) information. 17:40:06 @regXboi - some info on 501 (c) * organizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization 17:40:09 * edwarnicke___ is sad we won't have dbainbri for the actual discussion 17:41:08 #info Lots of projects being brought by non-Platinum members 17:42:46 #raiseshand 17:43:11 #action phrobb to build a new list of committers and their company affiliation 17:43:13 #info David Meyer askes if ready for a vote 17:43:33 #info David Meyer suggests an option of including a sunset clause 17:43:51 #info Ryan Moats (IBM) suggests we can also send multiple suggestions 17:45:08 #info Ed Warnicke (Cisco) suggests the proposal has not be available for very long 17:46:23 #info Ryan Moats agrees with Ed that we should let this percolate on the mailing list for another week 17:46:41 * edwarnicke___ Ed begins to think of coffee due to all the talk of percolation 17:47:09 #action regXboi to put out a mail to continue discussion on the discuss list 17:47:39 #action all should read community feedback on proposal(s) 17:48:35 Could we get a topic change? 17:48:49 I"m not chair - I can't help 17:48:52 #topic Automated Release 17:48:56 thanks 17:49:03 Thanks RobDolin :) 17:49:05 #chair regXboi 17:49:05 Current chairs: RobDolin colindixon phrobb regXboi 17:49:12 oops 17:49:20 no good deed goes unpunished 17:49:22 :-) 17:49:32 For sure. Usually Ryan or Phil beat me to the topic changes ;) 17:49:34 * edwarnicke___ hides from the magic chair stick ;) 17:49:43 quick - chair him! 17:49:46 MMMUUUUUUTTTTEEEEEE 17:49:54 #chair edwarnicke__ 17:49:54 Warning: Nick not in channel: edwarnicke__ 17:49:54 Current chairs: RobDolin colindixon edwarnicke__ phrobb regXboi 17:50:06 oh noos! ;) 17:50:15 chaired ;( ;) 17:50:29 * alagalah giggles 17:50:35 * regXboi wonders if threatening with the magic chair stick would have any effect ;) 17:50:53 seems topic is wrong 17:51:12 regXboi: I'll take the same approach I take with laundry ... "Oh did I wash that brand new red shirt with the whites??? WOOOPSY! What? You never want me to do it again???" 17:51:54 cdub: I think the name is slightly different from the topic 17:52:19 iow, are we not on odl root parent project creation review? 17:52:29 cdub: Yes we are 17:52:31 #topic Root Parent Project Creation Review 17:52:38 #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:ODL_Root_Parent 17:52:40 Thanks RobDolin :) 17:52:41 (Sorry, I used the title from the slides 17:52:43 and cdub :) 17:52:45 they are pretty much the same thing 17:54:39 regXboi: I would say that the rootPom project is requisite for most of the possible ways of resolving the release automation stuff... but approving the project is not the same as the TSC imposing the solution (which I still think should come by project adoption) 17:54:59 point 17:55:06 where are the slides? 17:56:05 #action Root Parent team to #link in minutes 17:56:07 slides on webex don't really exist 17:56:24 cdub: very good point - I should have been awake 17:56:24 please, always have public accessible and #link here 17:56:33 cdub: +15 to that 17:56:53 cdub: Yep, just pixels 17:57:00 so I have a concern 17:57:02 :) 17:57:08 * alagalah shocked face 17:57:12 regXboi: you? 17:57:22 yeah I know - big suprise 17:57:37 * edwarnicke___ is shocked ;) 17:59:39 #info regXboi raises concern that the project needs to document how to fully enable/educate projects how to do automated documentation building in this new structure 17:59:45 regXboi: did I get that right? 17:59:50 yes 17:59:52 thanks 18:01:06 #edwarnicke___ asks for clarity on what is being consided… a root POM project, but the TSC is not endorsing any particular solution within each project 18:01:28 * edwarnicke___ excited to use #vote 18:01:30 #info further details to be worked out w/in technical community 18:02:08 #info David Meyer explains this is creation of the project, not which solution will be used 18:02:54 can't get there from here...w/out this project 18:04:05 cdub: exactly 18:04:16 or at least imho I don't see how to do it without this 18:04:29 yup 18:05:26 #info Mathieu Lemay asks why we need a seprate project for this 18:05:52 #info Raghurama explains this is importance for release dependencies order 18:08:17 #info Mlemay and madhu ask if we need a new project for this work or could it be hosted within an existing project? 18:09:07 #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/File:Versioning-Updated.ppt <- PPT that was presented 18:10:51 #info ragbhat asks "is there a concern in creating a project out of this work"? 18:11:30 can't hear 18:13:30 i think i'm at the other end of a busted string 18:13:36 #info Chris Wright (Red Hat) volunteers to help with this project 18:13:40 can't hear a damn thing 18:13:57 the question on the table is to create the root parent project 18:14:12 #startvote Vote to move the ODL Root Parent Project to Incubation (not how it's implented within any given project) +1, -1, 0 18:14:12 Unable to parse vote topic and options. 18:14:12 Could someone #info the question 18:14:26 #vote +1 18:14:26 you need to startvote..erk, never mind 18:14:27 #info the question on the table is to create the root parent project 18:14:41 #vote +1 18:14:44 #vote +1 18:14:47 #vote +1 18:14:48 #vote +1 18:14:52 #vote 0 18:15:04 Is "0" an abstain or present ? 18:15:11 0 is abstain 18:15:15 #endvote 18:15:23 #info David Meyer clarifies "0" = Abstain 18:16:37 #info Vote results are 5 +1, 0 -1, 1 0 18:17:19 #agreed root parent project to incubation 18:17:20 #agreed Rott Parent Project is moved to incubation 18:17:44 * edwarnicke___ marvels at dmm's time management acumen ;) 18:17:52 +1 :) 18:17:54 * regXboi also 18:17:54 Rott, heh ;) 18:18:16 yea, Doh! 18:18:42 #topic Stable Release 18:18:57 #info Chris Wright reports the process has started 18:19:17 #info Chris also reports there has not been meaningful discussion about date for converging 18:19:31 #info no date has been picked for the first release. At least two projects have not yet created a branch 18:20:14 #info regXboi asks if we are far enough along to switch the dependencies onto the stable branch to see what breaks. 18:20:39 do we still follow 2 weeks from project-proposal to TSC creation review ? 18:21:22 Madhu: I believe so 18:21:26 why? 18:21:33 @madhu yes 18:21:44 okay. i saw opflex in the creation review today. 18:21:50 in agenda 18:21:55 it's scheduled for 5/1 18:21:58 not today 18:22:06 Madhu: it's got a 5/1 after it 18:22:11 at least that's how I read the agenda 18:22:13 @madhu: I put the date they asked for the review after it 18:22:15 * tbachman notes others have been misled there as well 18:22:33 @tbackman: misled how 18:22:38 #info cdub notes that the controller and yangtools projects need to have the patches/bug-fixes on the stable branch… that is still a work in progress with some Jenkins stability slowing things down 18:22:48 dmm: sorry -- misled is the wrong wor 18:22:50 word 18:22:56 missed :) 18:23:04 they've missed the 5/1 after it, I think 18:23:08 thanks. wasn't paying attention to the change in date 18:23:36 I guess I can try to note it differently, but I want to leave it in the agenda 18:23:39 dmm: Confused maybe a better word, mate :) I didn't understand the 5/1 18:23:51 I'll make it explicti 18:23:54 explicit 18:24:01 can someone #info, cause i didn't hear anything 18:24:03 dmm: Thanks, I like explicit :) 18:24:46 #topic Can integration projects contain distributions other than Release Vehicles? 18:26:13 #info edwarnicke___ notes that it is implied that distributions in the integration project are 1 to 1 mapped to release vehicles… Does that have to be? 18:26:48 * regXboi <- raises hand 18:27:04 #info Madhu asks, since inclusion in the Integration project implies testing by integration team, is that what is recommended here? 18:27:09 * regXboi and prepares the grenade 18:27:57 #info edwarnicke___ notes that the integration team would need to define any bounds/scope on distributions other than release vehicles 18:28:56 * regXboi throws the grenade 18:29:55 #info regXboi pulls pin on grenade….. notes one of biggest headaches is non-determinacy of OSGi… putting more into that structure (with Karafe) will require fixing of the determinism 18:30:07 * edwarnicke___ jumps in foxhole :) 18:30:50 Service loader ? 18:30:56 * alagalah jumps in edwarnicke___ foxhole 18:31:00 #info mlemay notes that this is an issue and needs to be worked… even thanks regXboi for the grenade 18:31:11 * edwarnicke___ notes that its getting crowded in here 18:32:56 Can someone please explain in a little more detail about what the Karaf work is for if it isn't replacing Felix/Equinox ? 18:33:15 it is a layer on top of felix/equinox 18:33:30 that provides proper bootstraping, componentisation, shell and security 18:33:51 it makes osgi consumable to mere mortals 18:34:00 cdub: +1 :) 18:34:38 one important piece is the notion of a "feature" which is logical sets of bundles this way it is easier to compose the proper controller and /or projects 18:35:27 a follow up important piece is a much more friendly shell 18:36:18 #info This topic came up due to Karafe migration work proposed by mlemay. The question was "how to do this the best way"… if a distribution within the Integration project were available, that would be the best place.... 18:36:57 #info but currently the only thing associated with the Integration project are "release vehicles" 18:37:39 another benefit — Pax Exam only needs to pick up the ODL features descriptor files and test if the container boots up, bundles active — simplifies your testing 18:38:05 #info regXboi notes that having a side conversation on "what automated release" means might be worthwhile for clarity 18:38:47 #info Seeking TSC clarity that "things in the Integration Project are not necessarily a Release Vehicle" 18:41:57 #info It is noted that automated release will generate weekly, non-release artifacts… however this question is about having a different set of artifacts built within integration that is not part of any expected release vehicle 18:42:33 #info regXboi asks "should this question go to the "discuss" list 18:44:49 #info Given that it doesn't seem that the Karafe activity won't be blocked in the short term, we should put this to the Discuss list for community comment 18:46:08 #topic Other Topics 18:46:42 #info regXboi notes he has a few additional topics… 18:50:09 #info This will go to mailing list but the topic is on tomcat and more java/OSGi bundle loading determinism. 18:50:33 #action regXboi to start discussion on tomcat and bundle loading determinism 18:50:40 * cdub avoids the "distributions add no value" discussion for now 18:50:40 #endmeeting