15:00:12 #startmeeting Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2015-10-27) 15:00:12 Meeting started Tue Oct 27 15:00:12 2015 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00:12 #meetingname ServerSIG 15:00:12 #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik stefw adamw simo danofsatx 15:00:12 #topic roll call 15:00:12 The meeting name has been set to 'serversig' 15:00:12 Current chairs: adamw danofsatx mizmo nirik sgallagh simo stefw 15:00:19 .hello simo 15:00:21 simo: simo 'Simo Sorce' 15:00:29 It's that time of the week, folks. Who's here? 15:00:32 .hello sgallagh 15:00:33 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 15:00:38 .hello kevin 15:00:39 nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' 15:01:00 * jds2001 is about 15:01:17 .hello dmossor 15:01:18 danofsatx: dmossor 'Dan Mossor' 15:02:07 .hello duffy 15:02:09 mizmo: duffy 'Máirín Duffy' 15:02:18 .hello mhayden 15:02:18 mhayden: mhayden 'Major Hayden' 15:03:26 oh, hay mhayden! We were just discussing you at UIW yesterday ;) 15:03:35 .hello stefw 15:03:36 stefw: stefw 'Stef Walter' 15:03:40 uh-oh, that can't be good 15:03:47 ;) 15:04:26 OK, let's get started. 15:04:33 #topic Agenda 15:04:33 #info Agenda Item: Empty WG Seats 15:04:33 #info Agenda Item: Server/Cloud Interaction 15:05:22 Any other items for the agenda today? 15:06:25 OK, then. 15:06:29 #topic Empty WG Seats 15:06:44 As I assume everyone is aware by now, we have two open seats on the Server Working Group 15:06:54 #info There are two open seats on the Server Working Group 15:07:10 We have currently two candidates to fill them. 15:07:34 #info Candidate: Major Hayden 15:07:34 #info Candidate: Jon Stanley 15:07:46 * jds2001 waves 15:08:00 * nirik nods. :) 15:08:40 Our governance charter requires that a majority of the remaining members must vote in the affirmative to grant them a seat. 15:09:00 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter 15:09:22 * nirik is +1 for both. Would be great to have them aboard. 15:09:38 * danofsatx longs for the days of hazing... 15:09:38 I'll open the floor to interrogating the candidates if anyone wants to do so. 15:09:56 * mhayden wonders when the interrogation light comes on ;) 15:10:06 bzzzzoot 15:10:15 is there waterboarding involved? :D 15:10:16 simo: Oops, that was the death-ray. 15:10:16 mhayden: I would worry more about when the light goes off 15:10:32 sgallagh: hey they are all just the same led color on my uberpanel :) 15:10:34 dustymabe: mabe so, mabe not 15:10:39 :) 15:10:46 anyway 15:11:09 q.1) Do you think you'll have enough time to dedicate to the SIG? 15:11:14 * danofsatx digs up the letters from the ml 15:11:37 q.2) Why do you think you'd be a good candidate ? 15:11:43 those are my q.s 15:12:08 simo: I *think* 2) was covered by the introductory emails they sent to server@lists.fp.o, do you disagree? 15:12:09 mhayden: jds2001: feel free to respond with short answers 15:12:16 simo: my involvement is specifically approved by $DAYJOB, and it's precisely because of $DAYJOB that I'm an excellent candidate :) 15:12:25 sgallagh: just want to have a record here 15:12:28 Sure 15:12:48 Q1) although i don't know the specific time commitments necessary for the role, some of these items are congruent with my $dayjob 15:13:04 and i seem to keep running more an more fedora servers/vm's at home :P 15:13:26 simo: being out in the trenches, architecting server solutions. I tend to be aware of what works and doesn't in the enterprise :D 15:13:44 So, the time-commitment we hope for is this meeting plus at least a couple hours a week working towards our stated goals for the release. 15:14:09 Q2) although i run a fedora laptop, the majority of my fedora interactions are with servers, and i've build some products at work using fedora 15:14:29 and i enjoy working with other folks to make the community/products better 15:14:46 i'm told that i know how to ensure pain really well, too, since i'm on the security team :P 15:14:50 Also, just to be clear: neither candidate's $DAYJOB resolves to "Red Hat". 15:15:05 yeah, full transparency, i work on OpenStack at Rackspace 15:15:09 mhayden: "ensure" or "endure"? Both fits. 15:15:19 sgallagh: oops, s/ensure/endure/ 15:15:38 * jds2001 works on cloud hosting architecture at Bank of America (mostly internal for now, based on openstack and propietary products) 15:15:55 * dustymabe waves a jds2001 15:16:01 s/a/at 15:16:24 * jds2001 waves at dustymabe 15:16:41 dustymabe: put jds2001 down and stop waving him in the air :P 15:17:33 Any other questions for our candidates? I think they're fairly well-known 'round these here parts 15:18:01 sgallagh: I do not have any other question 15:18:41 OK, let's open the formal voting. 15:19:41 sgallagh: one candidate at a time or both at the same time ? 15:20:11 Proposal: Major Hayden and Jon Stanley should be seated in the Server Working Group. 15:20:19 +1 (Major) / +1 (Jon) 15:20:21 seconded 15:20:32 erm, +1 to both, even 15:20:48 +1 and +1 15:21:00 +2 15:21:00 * danofsatx got mixed up with parlimentary proceedings 15:21:03 +1/+1 15:21:29 +1/+1 15:22:43 #agreed Major Hayden and Jon Stanley are seated in the Server Working Group (+6, 0, -0) 15:22:49 Welcome aboard! 15:22:54 #chair mhayden jds2001 15:22:55 Current chairs: adamw danofsatx jds2001 mhayden mizmo nirik sgallagh simo stefw 15:22:55 \o/ 15:23:09 welcome to the fun. ;) 15:23:12 nice how that works 15:23:29 woo! :) 15:23:29 Who wants to take care of the Wiki updates? 15:23:33 * mhayden high fives jds2001 15:23:34 where's the party? :D 15:23:41 * jds2001 high fives mhayden 15:23:50 okay so jds2001 and i talked and we feel like systemd is a bad idea, let's go back to upstart 15:23:53 * mhayden ducks 15:23:55 :P 15:24:02 * simo kicks mhayden 15:24:02 * jds2001 hides 15:24:16 how did i guess that simo would be first on that one :) 15:24:18 #unchair mhayden 15:24:18 Current chairs: adamw danofsatx jds2001 mizmo nirik sgallagh simo stefw 15:24:21 ;-) 15:24:24 oh burn 15:24:32 #chair mhayden 15:24:32 Current chairs: adamw danofsatx jds2001 mhayden mizmo nirik sgallagh simo stefw 15:24:34 ouch 15:24:52 * simo disables SELinux on mhayden's computers 15:24:56 no! 15:25:11 I knew this would hurt more 15:25:18 ok, so with that out of the way, let's move on. 15:25:21 #info Agenda Item: Server/Cloud Interaction 15:25:22 ack 15:25:26 * jds2001 steals all of mhayden's 'setenforce 1' t-shirts :D 15:25:28 #undo 15:25:28 Removing item from minutes: INFO by sgallagh at 15:25:21 : Agenda Item: Server/Cloud Interaction 15:25:31 #topic Server/Cloud Interaction 15:25:49 I asked dustymabe to join us today to represent the Cloud SIG 15:25:57 sgallagh: is this about using the server install for cloud images ? 15:25:59 I understand he's splitting his attention, so we'll be kind. 15:26:03 sgallagh: for the record mhayden is also "around" the cloud space quite a bit 15:26:18 so having him in server will help interactions with cloud WG 15:26:24 ok guys who is *not* around the clud space ? 15:26:30 I expect that to be true of both our new members 15:26:32 simo: the answer is cloudy 15:26:38 we have a winner 15:26:39 mhayden: "nebulous" 15:26:56 but more seriopusly 15:27:00 err seriously 15:27:09 I'm not...at least not yet. 15:27:13 dustymabe, mhayden: Can either of you comment on the rumor that the traditional cloud image is going away? 15:27:22 Because that's pretty central to this discussion 15:27:29 does this proposal mean we need to deliver the server product as a docker/rocket/whatever image as one of the deliverables ? 15:27:42 i don't think i've been privy to that whole discussion 15:27:43 simo: There's no proposal at all yet. 15:28:06 i dont think the cloud image is going away 15:28:06 sgallagh: the traditional cloud image is here to stay 15:28:10 simo: that would seem...odd...to me 15:28:18 but it's not going to be fedora cloud as an elevated edition of the 3 we have 15:28:19 There has been some suggestion that we might supplant the traditional cloud image as our AMI/etc. offering 15:28:23 rather it'll be an alternative download 15:28:26 on alt.fpo 15:28:26 the idea is that the focus of the WG will be more on Atomic Host 15:28:40 kind of like the minimal image 15:28:41 and our promotions will be more around that 15:28:51 where the minimal image exists, but it's not featured 15:29:05 but the traditional cloud image is still there and will be there to stay if I have anything to do with it 15:29:10 mizmo: do we still upload AMI's of it? 15:29:16 jds2001, i think so 15:29:18 jds2001: yes 15:29:20 or what is the "official" AMI that's featured? 15:29:29 I was asked a while back by mattdm whether it would make sense for Server to provide a more mainstream choice for people looking through Amazon images. 15:29:57 well I thought fedora server could become the "base image" 15:30:00 So someone looking for "Fedora-but-not-Atomic" would still have a target. 15:30:11 sgallagh: i thought that the server product was more for pets than catlle 15:30:17 but I guess I misunderstood what it means for cloud to concentrate on atomic 15:30:17 simo: Well, Server might be heavyweight for that use-case. 15:30:30 sgallagh: minimal install server of course 15:30:33 jds2001: It is; but that doesn't mean there are no pets in the public cloud 15:30:40 man, way too many negatives in that sentence 15:30:45 * mattdm parachutes in 15:30:51 simo: minimal-install isn't *really* Server. 15:30:55 ok 15:30:59 Yeah — story would be cattle? atomic! pets? server! 15:31:42 mattdm: what about cattle that aren't containerized? 15:31:59 dustymabe: They're roaming and you need to get the dogs out looking for them 15:32:04 *rimshot* 15:32:06 * nirik has not too many complaints with the current cloud image. Not sure what would be changed 15:32:07 sgallagh++ 15:32:08 mattdm: Karma for sgallagh changed to 1 (for the f23 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:32:26 dustymabe: you could really still do them on top of the server image 15:32:32 #link https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/127 15:32:39 nirik: you should stop by our meeting on wednesdays, I'd like to hear them 15:32:48 maybe pets v cattle isn't the best way to make the distinction, really 15:32:51 mattdm: server is a bit heavy, no? 15:32:59 mostly things that have already sailed I fear... like disable root, etc. 15:33:13 server is going to be a lot larger than cloud 15:33:32 nirik: you can't log in as root on a cloud image unless you tell cloud-init you want to 15:33:47 I well know it. ;) 15:33:47 jds2001: maybe. keeping the cloud base minimal is a continual fight, and one not really well resourced 15:34:07 given the above points, i worry that we'll end up having to carry two versions of server ... instead of cloud carrying two versions 15:34:12 mattdm: I won't argue with you that the cloud group could use more resources 15:34:42 my $job isn't even to work on cloud 15:34:50 If we opt to build Server AMIs, I'd want them to be identical to Server on bare-metal except possibly for kernel drivers and cloud-init 15:34:54 How big is the server mimimal? 15:35:01 sgallagh +1 15:35:13 mattdm: Do you mean "server default"? 15:35:22 sgallagh: sure :) 15:35:24 Because we have a "minimal install" option, but it's not branded Server 15:35:41 we have a minimal image, a cloud image, a server image 15:35:42 it sounds like really people want to merge server and cloud and form a new 'atomic/container/new tech' working group? 15:36:07 sgallagh: so the AIM is just to provide a normal server image that can be easily installed on existing public/private infrastructures ? 15:36:09 nirik: It does sound rather like that to me as well 15:36:11 nirik: hmmmm. 15:36:24 sgallagh: nirik 15:36:25 I think that's a good idea only if server goes all-in on atomic. 15:36:25 simo: That's what *I'm* thinking. I don't know if it agrees with everyone else :) 15:36:31 I don't know about that 15:36:39 well that's why I am asking 15:36:59 so back a second, who came up with the original cloudy idea ? 15:37:12 simo which one when? 15:37:17 well, it would be odd to me to have a "cloud working group" and the cloud images are all done by the "server working group"... but perhaps thats just me 15:37:18 how far are we backing? :) 15:37:24 to ask server to do something with cloud images 15:38:10 mattdm: i dont think what nirik meant was to change anything but names of the two wg's 15:38:11 nirik -- In _my_ picture, Cloud SIG would still exist and help with cloud guest images of all sorts 15:38:12 morning 15:38:21 * roshi shows up 15:38:21 but Cloud WG would become Atomic WG 15:38:36 i.e. not actually merge server and cloud, but have server concentrate on both, and the existing cloud wg focus on atomic/containers/etc 15:38:40 * roshi reads backscroll 15:38:47 right. 15:38:47 hmmm 15:39:02 possibly with a new mailing list to avoid confusion 15:39:12 * mattdm regrets keeping Workstation on desktop mailing list 15:39:18 So essentially drop the "Cloud" name entirely and focus on solutions based on use-case rather than environmnet 15:39:23 sgallagh++ 15:39:25 sgallagh++ 15:39:27 sgallagh++ 15:39:29 sgallagh++ 15:39:31 sgallagh++ 15:39:33 sgallagh++ 15:39:36 mattdm: Uh... thanks? 15:40:27 (I'm in favor.) 15:40:27 but does the amount of our deliverables increase? I'm thinking it has to.... 15:40:32 sure.. but I think there should still be a cloud wg that is at least partly focused on the minimal cloud image like it is delivered today 15:40:59 dustymabe: Well, we don't need a WG for anything that we aren't considering a top-level deliverable of the Fedora Project. 15:41:01 I don't think merging server with cloud makes sense.. I think we care about different things 15:41:07 We have spin SIGs for that. 15:41:19 Which is (I think) what the minimal cloud image would become, essentially 15:41:38 why? 15:41:41 that's a lot to read 15:42:04 so what you are saying is that the server delivered cloud image is now more important than the minimal cloud image we have been delivering? 15:42:26 dustymabe: I would suggest that yes, we should promote it that way 15:42:40 Because we don't have a great marketing story for the minimal cloud image 15:43:08 I don't disagree that we don't have a good marketing story 15:43:25 but that doesn't make it the right thing to do 15:43:34 I guess I need to think about this more 15:43:41 dustymabe: thinking is fair :) 15:43:45 it's just odd to me 15:43:53 dustymabe: Yeah, no one is prepared to make a binding decision today, I don't think 15:44:11 dustymabe: minimal cloud image would become something more like KDE 15:44:13 i've been at companies that use cloud images a lot and the minimal image is what they used to "build" off of 15:44:32 yeah, we do want to have it available and discoverable for people who know they want that 15:44:32 to build their cattle 15:44:47 to me too, this isn't in the ball park of what I had in mind - so I need to think about it as well 15:44:50 * nirik uses the cloud images all the time. 15:44:55 but I thought promoting "pets" in pub cloud was a bad thing though 15:44:57 But are they using Fedora for that or are they using CentOS/Ubuntu/whatever> 15:45:08 and you are saying that is what we should do 15:45:25 (other than nirik) 15:45:43 we are definitely using the fedora cloud images in our openstack. ;) 15:45:51 well, server isn't -necessarily- pets, _really_ 15:45:59 mattdm: I feel like this might be a candidate for a Council slot where we gather representatives from the Cloud and Server SIGs to discuss this in a high-bandwidth mode. 15:46:04 nirik: and ould you prefer to use a "server" cloud image? 15:46:10 sgallagh yes good idea 15:46:39 nirik, dustymabe What if there were Server roles for 90% of what you wanted to do? 15:46:43 dustymabe: I do not think the name really is important 15:46:50 * jds2001 thinks that the option of that is valuable 15:46:59 I think what matters is: how different is this image from the default server install ? 15:47:04 dustymabe: not really. 15:47:10 and is this soemthing the server WG can take on reasonably well 15:47:10 mattdm: I would be pretty amazed. ;) 15:47:15 simo: Well, that and "is it worth expending the effort to produce it"? 15:47:25 what are the resources we have to handle it ? (whatever thet "it" turns out to be 15:47:39 sgallagh: it seem there are quite a few users 15:47:55 so I gather it would be worth (let's assume it is for the sake of conversation) 15:48:35 testing, making sure it stays small and pruning deps, etc 15:48:40 nirik: We should amaze people :) 15:48:43 it's just going to be hard to convince someone that server is better for them when they already know what they want to do and how to do it 15:48:55 nirik: In general, we should be pruning deps in Server as well, wherever possible. 15:48:56 and they just want a minimal image.. 15:49:07 mattdm: often our cloud instances are dev for some new thing someone is working on, so it would be unlikely there would be a role for a thing that doesn't yet exist 15:49:12 which I would argue people that do cloud right already know 15:49:14 If we're building a cloud image, it just becomes more obvious 15:49:49 dustymabe: my argument is that those people will be able to find it. They don't need to be told any more than that it exists and where to get it 15:49:49 dustymabe: right 15:49:53 I don't mind the server group building a cloud image.. that is fine.. but I don't like the traditional cloud image getting minimized as a result 15:49:56 if I wanted to deploy something that we have a role for then yeah, the server image and rokekit might be a good fit... but you can always install that on top. 15:49:59 it is akin to https://arm.fedoraproject.org/ 15:50:15 nirik++ 15:50:15 dustymabe: Karma for kevin changed to 4 (for the f23 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:50:38 which means that a good path from cloud minimal to server might be a good idea? 15:50:46 nirik: I'd like to see it get to the point where roles cover enough that people look there first, and then second, consider contributing a role if one is missing 15:50:51 that could happen on instance instantiation 15:50:58 dustymabe: Well, here's the other part. When one installs Server, they're not just getting an OS. We're working to assure that they're getting a known platform. 15:51:13 dustymabe: note that we do have https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Convert_Fedora_Cloud_Image_to_Fedora_Server 15:51:20 Sure, they can mix and match whatever packages they want, but the aim is for the default Server install to be a known quantity. 15:51:38 sgallagh: so make a cloud image 15:51:48 dustymabe: I think you've convinced me that we shouldn't _drop_ Cloud Base in favor of the Server image 15:52:05 sorry guys. I don't mean to be difficult 15:52:06 we've got at least two scripts for converting cloud to server, one bash and one python 15:52:17 choice! 15:52:29 dustymabe: no no. difficult is good 15:52:29 I am still confused about what are the goals and deliverables 15:52:31 call me thick 15:52:38 simo: You're thick :-P 15:52:41 thick is less good :) :) :) 15:52:48 .fire adamw 15:52:48 adamw fires adamw 15:52:52 cloud-to-server is the python one, innit? 15:53:06 what's the use case of cloud-to-server ? 15:53:19 .fire adamw for showing up late 15:53:19 adamw fires adamw for showing up late 15:53:23 simo: Promote the cloud base image to something that provides the Server platform 15:53:28 does that mean I can go home now? 15:53:30 simo: current easy way to get Server in EC2. 15:53:31 simo: you want to deploy something that has a role ? 15:53:34 yeah, and I rewrote it in bash since there was talk of removing python from the cloud base image 15:53:40 * roshi should probably test it 15:53:40 So I suppose we could take that over. 15:53:42 sgallagh: that's what it does not what is the use case :) 15:53:47 my use case was: deploy VMs using cloud image because it was faster, convert to server for more traditional management 15:54:11 yeah, that ^^ 15:54:17 nirik: why wouldn't I just install an image built by a server install ? 15:54:30 danofsatx: is that actually _net_ faster? 15:54:36 simo: because we don't have one? :) 15:54:43 simo: is there one that has cloud-init and partitioning, etc? 15:54:44 meh 15:54:49 simo: Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by "an image built by a server install"? 15:54:59 * mattdm runs off to get a flu shot 15:55:08 sure you could make your own, but thats like work... 15:55:10 another usecase: I spin up a droplet on Digital Ocean (which is a cloud base image), and turn that into a server since it's more of a pet for me than cattle 15:55:14 mattdm: yes, in my particular corner case, spinning up cloud image and running cloud-to-server was faster than installing via Server DVD. 15:55:32 danofsatx: why not just use virt-install or something? 15:55:38 danofsatx: *nod*, but if there was a server image to start with, that've been faster total 15:55:39 yeah. so there would be value in having a server cloud image in some cases 15:55:40 I agree 15:55:42 * mattdm really runs off 15:55:50 adamw: 'cuz I was a noob 15:55:56 perhaps we should see what all the differences really are? 15:56:01 but I don't think it would be better than the cloud minimal image 15:56:01 mattdm: (now that you're gone) yes, probably 15:56:05 for most use cases 15:56:07 perhaps we could conditionalize them so it would work either way? 15:56:12 Ironically-enough, I'm starting to reduce my sense that this is valuable (vs. enhancing the promotion script) 15:56:20 ok 15:56:21 (ie, run cloud-init only if it's a cloud, etc) 15:56:32 seem we are still all thinking about this 15:56:40 and we are not going to take a decision in the next 5 minutes 15:56:44 Right, there's definitely no decision to be made today. 15:56:47 * nirik nods. 15:56:50 lots to mull over 15:56:51 sgallagh: enhancing the script that does the conversion? 15:56:55 so what about someone with an interest puts down a proposal ? 15:57:04 dustymabe: Perhaps s/enhancing/maintaining better/ 15:57:09 I would like to have at least 2 proposal from 2 people that have different ideas 15:57:11 sgallagh++ 15:57:11 dustymabe: Karma for sgallagh changed to 2 (for the f23 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:57:12 But yes, that's what I meant 15:57:33 the proposal would explain what are the deliverables with enough detail to understand what we are talking about 15:57:35 that would be my vote.. and making it really easy for someone to start a cloud minimal image and end up with "server" and apply a role 15:57:45 boom* 15:57:53 that's what the minimal image is all about 15:57:59 being able to be molded into other things 15:58:07 but nothing that you don't want 15:58:12 dustymabe: Hey, thanks. You just kicked me into position 4 on the badges leaderboard :-D 15:58:21 sounds like a minimal install in form of an image that can be easily started on a cloud infrastructure 15:58:24 :) 15:58:30 ie minimal-install + cloud-init 15:58:41 is there anything more than that to this base image ? 15:58:50 * jds2001 will make a detailed proposal later, but I think that a server based image makes sense 15:59:15 perhaps as something discoverable, but not promoted as our primary cloud image (that would be the existing miniaml image) 15:59:15 ok 15:59:23 jds2001: that would be fine too! 15:59:29 simo: I think that's what we were discussing: does it make sense to just help the base image convert to Server post-install? 15:59:33 we could even promote it as an option if we wanted.. 15:59:49 I just don't think it makes sense to have it be "The" cloud thing we offer 16:00:07 dustymabe: Well, it made more sense when I was hearing that the base image was being abandoned :) 16:00:10 as traditionally cloud images have been minimal and that would be unexpected 16:00:14 so, what's the timeline here? We've got a release to get out the door 16:00:15 dustymabe: who is going to maintain that existing image? 16:00:25 roshi: All of this is F24 discussion 16:00:27 jds2001: the cloud working group 16:00:40 it's not our focus but it is still ours 16:00:42 sgallagh: I mean for the proposals? 16:00:49 dustymabe: that works. so long as it's not abandonware 16:01:01 jds2001: nope.. and we'd love to have more people in the CLOUD WG 16:01:05 roshi: I'd say at least 3 weeks before Alpha Freeze, personally 16:01:12 dustymabe and I can sync up and then take it to the cloud WG 16:01:56 roshi: thanks 16:02:07 sgallagh: feel free to hit me up anytime you want to chat about this 16:02:12 np - does that sound like a good plan? 16:02:23 /me nods 16:02:39 once we have something (we'll come up with one of the proposals simo wants) we'll ping you guys and have a joint meeting 16:02:40 Shall we continue this discussion on the server@ list, the cloud@ list or other? 16:02:45 or go to the council or whatever 16:02:59 * dustymabe might have to go to council for the first time 16:03:01 * roshi probably needs to subscribe to the server list 16:03:13 like a pilgrimage 16:04:00 heh 16:04:00 lol 16:04:10 OK, I'm going to close out the meeting unless there's anything urgent. 16:04:52 sounds good 16:05:08 * roshi doesn't have anything 16:05:08 * nirik nods. 16:05:31 * simo waves 16:05:37 * jds2001 waves 16:05:55 #action roshi and dustymabe will discuss the Cloud/Server images and come back with a proposal. 16:05:58 * danofsatx wanders back to the cover letter 16:06:00 #endmeeting