17:01:57 <jberkus> #startmeeting fedora_atomic_wg 17:01:57 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 11 17:01:57 2017 UTC. The chair is jberkus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:01:57 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:01:57 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_atomic_wg' 17:02:07 <jberkus> #topic Roll Call 17:02:12 <jberkus> .hello jberkus 17:02:13 <zodbot> jberkus: jberkus 'Josh Berkus' <josh@agliodbs.com> 17:02:31 <dustymabe> .hello dustymabe 17:02:32 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dustymabe@redhat.com> 17:02:36 <jbrooks> .hello jasonbrooks 17:02:37 <zodbot> jbrooks: jasonbrooks 'Jason Brooks' <JBROOKS@REDHAT.COM> 17:03:25 <ksinny> .hello sinnykumari 17:03:26 <zodbot> ksinny: sinnykumari 'Sinny Kumari' <ksinny@gmail.com> 17:04:18 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion 17:04:22 <walters> .hello walters 17:04:24 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com> 17:04:27 <zodbot> walters: walters 'Colin Walters' <walters@redhat.com> 17:04:54 <miabbott> .hello miabbott 17:04:55 <zodbot> miabbott: miabbott 'Micah Abbott' <miabbott@redhat.com> 17:06:05 <jberkus> #chair jberkus dustymabe jbrooks ksinny maxamillion miabbott walters 17:06:05 <zodbot> Current chairs: dustymabe jberkus jbrooks ksinny maxamillion miabbott walters 17:06:33 <jberkus> OK, before we get to action items, we have a different important matter. 17:06:41 <jberkus> #topic Atomic WG Composition 17:06:55 <jberkus> We've had some folks move on to other things, and other folks join the WG 17:07:09 <jberkus> It seems to me that we need to update the list of membership in the WG 17:07:24 <jberkus> Does anyone know how we do that? Send a resolution to the Council? 17:07:28 <dustymabe> jberkus: that's been something i've been wanting to do for a while 17:07:40 <dustymabe> i don't think we need the council at all 17:07:54 <jberkus> dustymabe: yeah, well, I was looking at the wiki and realized that I don't think we can actually take a valid vote in this meeting 17:08:23 <dustymabe> which wiki? and you mean a valid vote according to how Fedora defines it? 17:08:36 <davdunc> .hello davdunc 17:08:37 <zodbot> davdunc: davdunc 'David Duncan' <davdunc@amazon.com> 17:09:24 <jberkus> At minimum 51% of the voting members of the Atomic WG must be in attendance in order to make decisions on meeting items. 17:09:36 <jberkus> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud#Meetings 17:09:48 <jberkus> #chair jberkus dustymabe jbrooks ksinny maxamillion miabbott walters davdunc 17:09:48 <zodbot> Current chairs: davdunc dustymabe jberkus jbrooks ksinny maxamillion miabbott walters 17:10:12 <dustymabe> jberkus: sure. basically we've been doing lazy consensus 17:10:36 <dustymabe> fortunately we haven't had any extremely controversial topics, but we should probably follow process better 17:10:48 <dustymabe> if you'd like to champion that effort, that would be great! 17:10:55 <jberkus> ksinny miabbott walters please add your names to the wiki here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud#Working_Group_Members_and_Points_of_Contact 17:11:48 <jberkus> davdunc: you too if you're planning on hanging around for the medium term 17:12:10 <davdunc> I am jberkus thanks. 17:12:39 <jberkus> #action jberkus to follow-up on adding/removing Atomic WG members via atomic-devel 17:12:49 <ksinny> jberkus: sure, thanks 17:13:12 <jberkus> #topic Action Items from Last Meeting 17:13:56 <jberkus> dustymabe: you have two action items 17:13:58 <walters> ok done 17:14:09 <jberkus> * dustymabe to update the rolling release plan with info about f27ah 17:14:09 <jberkus> * dustymabe to open ticket to consider changing meeting time of atomic 17:14:09 <jberkus> wg meeting 17:14:48 <dustymabe> #info ticket for new meeting time: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/346 17:15:03 <dustymabe> #action dustymabe to update the rolling release plan with info about f27ah 17:15:07 <dustymabe> ^^ re-action 17:15:53 <jberkus> dustymabe: so where are we with meeting times? 17:16:24 <dustymabe> jberkus: we should probably make that a topic 17:16:32 <dustymabe> let's get other action items done firt 17:16:34 <dustymabe> first 17:16:35 <jberkus> ok, that'll be last topic 17:16:48 <jberkus> neither of my two action items are done, so I'm going to re-action 17:17:14 <jberkus> #action jberkus to identify and create issue with list of blog posts we want for f27 release 17:17:25 <kushal> I found some errors in the autocloud run, I will send in a mail to the list later. 17:17:28 <jberkus> #action jberkus to follow up on images from Flock container workshop 17:17:33 <jberkus> hey, kushal! 17:17:44 <jberkus> #chair jberkus dustymabe jbrooks ksinny maxamillion miabbott walters davdunc kushal 17:17:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: davdunc dustymabe jberkus jbrooks ksinny kushal maxamillion miabbott walters 17:18:41 <jberkus> #action jberkus to follow up on docs from Flock workshop 17:18:50 <jberkus> jbrooks items 17:18:59 <jberkus> * jbrooks to go through remove-kube items and update 17:18:59 <jberkus> * jbrooks to email fedora-devel with issue of needed deps for 17:19:00 <jberkus> asciibinder container in fedora proper 17:19:18 <jberkus> strigazi: here? 17:19:33 <jbrooks> I didn't email fedora-devel about asciibinder, we can re-action that 17:19:51 <jbrooks> #action jbrooks to email fedora-devel with issue of needed deps for asciibinder container 17:20:41 <jbrooks> I did go through the remove-kube issues, there are basically two outstanding -- document the installation/migration, and that's basically done, in pieces, I'm going to put it in a wiki page. And the other outstanding one is an end-to-end kube test 17:20:50 <jbrooks> Which I haven't looked into so far 17:21:23 <dustymabe> should the document the installation/migration go in the atomic host docs repo? 17:21:34 <jbrooks> Yeah, I can put it there instead 17:21:39 <jbrooks> Or in addition 17:22:26 <dustymabe> jbrooks: want to give us an #info and then we can move on? 17:22:32 <jberkus> jbrooks: for end-to-end test, we kinda need todecide on a blessed installation method 17:22:37 <jberkus> which is an ongoing problem 17:22:55 <jberkus> #action jberkus to raise kube installation issues with openshift installer team 17:23:43 <jbrooks> #info remove-kube issues outstanding are documentation and end-to-end tests 17:23:52 <jbrooks> dustymabe, does that work 17:24:42 <jberkus> ok, strigazi isn't here, so I'll just re-up his action 17:25:04 <jberkus> #action strigazi to do some testing around upgrades from f26 to f27 with kubernetes 17:25:32 <maxamillion> jberkus: I think the most popular one in community space that could be easily augmented to work on Atomic Host would be kubespray (it's also based on ansible) 17:25:38 <dustymabe> +1 17:25:47 <jbrooks> I've tried that 17:25:48 <jberkus> #topic Open Tickets 17:25:51 <maxamillion> jberkus: it's a k8s incubator project 17:26:08 <jberkus> maxamillion: current obstacle is that it requires selinux=0 17:26:16 <maxamillion> jberkus: ohhhhh, that's not great 17:26:17 <jbrooks> I'm sure I can fix thatr 17:26:18 <jberkus> but potentially solvable 17:26:30 <maxamillion> jberkus: yeah 17:26:34 <jberkus> maxamillion: we could also use a canonical Ansible container (hint, hint) 17:26:41 <jbrooks> But I also really like the idea of latching onto openshift-ansible 17:27:00 <jbrooks> Just swap out the master and node roles, basically 17:27:04 <jberkus> jbrooks: more I want to know what their long-term plans are so that we can aim at convergence 17:27:28 <dustymabe> ok what topic are we on? 17:27:30 <jbrooks> Kubespray might be good, though, as a really upstream-focused thing 17:27:39 <jbrooks> We're talking about kube installation atm 17:27:40 <dustymabe> can we set the topic based on the 'meeting' label and go through those tickets? 17:27:48 <jberkus> ok, let's hash this out after the meeting? 17:27:56 <maxamillion> jberkus: yeah, the upstream focus is what I like about it especially since we're targeting vanilla k8s as a WG 17:27:57 <jbrooks> fine 17:28:01 <maxamillion> errr 17:28:03 <maxamillion> jbrooks: ^ 17:28:15 <jberkus> lemme add a new meeting ticket 17:28:27 <maxamillion> jberkus: yeah, I know ... I might ask if we can bring such a thing back into existence 17:28:51 <jberkus> ok, open tickets 17:29:16 * gholms appears 17:29:20 <jberkus> first: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/349 17:29:26 <jberkus> evaluate atomic-ci repo 17:30:14 <dustymabe> so releng builds a rawhide ostree like once an hour 17:30:17 <jberkus> dustymabe, maxamillion I'll admit that I don't really understand this one 17:30:29 <dustymabe> it's a little known thing that they do 17:30:40 <jberkus> does anyone consume it? 17:30:45 <dustymabe> it has been broken for a while and they are asking who is using it and if it's really needed 17:31:06 <dustymabe> the question is: who asked for this to be set up initially? is anyone using it now ? 17:31:10 <dustymabe> should we be using it for testing? 17:31:39 <jbrooks> seems like something walters would like 17:31:42 <maxamillion> I don't know who asked for it 17:31:45 <jberkus> dustymabe: can we raise this with stefw? 17:31:53 <walters> for a development stream I find FAHC *much* more useful 17:32:21 <walters> i guess if we have this tree it raises the issue of sync with the daily composes 17:32:23 <maxamillion> FAHC? 17:32:29 <walters> maxamillion, https://pagure.io/fedora-atomic-host-continuous 17:32:33 <maxamillion> walters: ah 17:32:47 <dustymabe> walters: question of sync with the daily composes? 17:33:01 <walters> does the daily rawhide compose generate an ostree commit too? 17:33:07 <walters> with the same ref? 17:33:13 <dustymabe> walters: yeah, but in a different ostree repo I think 17:33:17 <walters> oh 17:33:24 <dustymabe> i don't think they overwrite each other but I could be wrong 17:33:25 <walters> another one of those =( 17:33:42 <dustymabe> so.. should we set up atomic-host-tests against this stream as well? 17:33:52 <dustymabe> or should we just drop it ? 17:34:13 <gholms> Is anyone going to fix them when they break? 17:34:25 <dustymabe> gholms: good question 17:34:32 <gholms> If it's perpetually going to get dropped on the floor then we may as well drop them. 17:34:38 <walters> of course if we *reverted* things that caused to break, i.e. made the tests meaningful, that's a totally different thing 17:35:03 <dustymabe> so the Fedora CI work probably encroaches on this question too 17:35:22 <dustymabe> we should probably drop this effort from releng in favor of the Fedora CI work 17:35:34 <walters> anyways i don't have a really strong opinion 17:35:58 <dustymabe> neither do I 17:36:03 <dustymabe> anyone else? 17:36:07 <dustymabe> maxamillion?? 17:36:21 <maxamillion> yeah, I think that makes sense 17:36:28 <maxamillion> Fedora CI should really supercede this 17:36:41 <jlebon> i'd say if we're already busy with a-h-t on regular rawhide, then let's drop it for now? 17:36:43 <jberkus> ok, somebody want ot update the ticket? 17:36:51 <dustymabe> jberkus: i will 17:37:08 <jberkus> #chair jberkus dustymabe jbrooks ksinny maxamillion miabbott walters davdunc kushal gholms jlebon 17:37:08 <zodbot> Current chairs: davdunc dustymabe gholms jberkus jbrooks jlebon ksinny kushal maxamillion miabbott walters 17:37:18 <dustymabe> #action dustymabe to update the ticket regarding rawhide atomic-ci stream 17:37:18 <jberkus> ok, next ticket, Meeting Times 17:37:25 <jberkus> dustymabe: so what does the doodle say? 17:37:36 <dustymabe> jberkus: so i figured I'd give people another week to respond 17:37:43 <dustymabe> but I do want to discuss a few things 17:37:58 <dustymabe> 1. there was a question about whether we should move with daylight savings or not 17:38:24 <dustymabe> 2. I think we shouldn't implement the new meeting time until after daylight savings has changed (i.e. mid november) 17:38:47 <dustymabe> thoughts? 17:39:25 <jberkus> 2. yes 17:39:33 <gholms> Seems reasonable 17:39:40 <jberkus> 1. so non-DST makes things easier for Indians, but not for anyone else 17:40:11 <davdunc> 2. I think it’s good to wait. It’s not that far away. 17:40:12 <jberkus> I don't know about the rest of y'all, but most of my meetings for my employer are DST 17:40:22 <dustymabe> is India the only country of our contributors that don't observe DST ? I thought it was more 17:40:35 <jberkus> dustymabe: it's the only one where I know we have contributors 17:40:39 <jbrooks> Have we been moving already? 17:40:42 <dustymabe> ok 17:40:43 <jbrooks> I don't recall 17:40:46 <jberkus> we might have someone in Arizona we don't know about 17:40:52 <jbrooks> I know CentOS just sticks w/ UTC 17:41:06 <dustymabe> jbrooks: we have traditionally stuck with UTC 17:41:10 <gholms> So have we 17:41:12 <dustymabe> and not moved based on DST 17:41:28 <jbrooks> I'm fine w/ that -- I'm just wondering about time and how sleepy I'll be 17:41:36 <dustymabe> jberkus: is claiming this is actually more hurtful for the majority of our meeting attendees 17:41:40 <jbrooks> But the doodle looked all right 17:42:11 <jberkus> dustymabe: yes, because most of us in DST countries have other meetings, which are DST, and we can't steer them clear of conflicts if the meeting time "changes" twice a year. 17:42:31 <dustymabe> ksinny: sayan: i'd be interested in your input 17:42:38 <jberkus> counter-argument: DST doesn't change at the same time for all countries. And maybe changing times twice a year spreads the conflict pain around 17:43:06 <jberkus> also kushal ^^^ 17:43:08 * ksinny has got comfortable with current meeting time (17:00 UTC) 17:43:26 <ksinny> It works for me since it is after my dinner time 17:43:50 <dustymabe> ksinny: how do you feel about moving the meeting with DST vs sticking with UTC year round? 17:44:01 <gholms> Which DST transition? 17:44:06 <gholms> The US's? 17:44:20 <jberkus> gholms: yah, that's the other counter-argument 17:45:04 <ksinny> dustymabe: with current time, it will be a bit late with DST 17:45:09 <jberkus> ok, 2 more minutes on this? just because we have some topics for open floor 17:45:44 <dustymabe> can we get some resolution on DST vs UTC? 17:46:01 * ksinny votes for UTC 17:46:07 <miabbott> +1 UTC 17:46:19 <kushal> UTC is the best. 17:46:23 <jbrooks> +1 UTC 17:46:29 <davdunc> +1 UTC 17:46:30 <jberkus> that seems determinative 17:46:32 <jberkus> UTC it is 17:46:33 <gholms> Heh 17:46:38 <dustymabe> ok 17:46:41 <dustymabe> i'll update the ticket 17:46:47 <dustymabe> jberkus: feel free to move on 17:46:52 <jberkus> ok 17:46:58 <jberkus> #topic Open Floor 17:47:00 <gholms> Re-selecting the meeting time semi-annually makes sense to me anyway, as people come and go. 17:47:06 <jberkus> davdunc: you had an update? 17:47:19 <davdunc> sure. 17:47:55 <davdunc> I have artwork for the publication of the cloud server and fah for AWS Marketplace lined up. 17:48:02 <kushal> Yay :) 17:48:42 <davdunc> I am working on scheduling availability in AWS MP for the end of Oct. release of F27. 17:49:03 <davdunc> should have more details for next week's meeting. 17:49:14 <dustymabe> davdunc: cool cool 17:49:18 <dustymabe> davdunc: so we release every two weeks 17:49:44 <dustymabe> is there a way to automated the process and have some status page that shows which marketplace images correspond to what public non-marketplace images? 17:49:54 <davdunc> dustymabe: the submission is a manual process for now. It's a limitation of MP. We'll just schedule it at this point. 17:50:10 <maxamillion> davdunc++ 17:50:28 <davdunc> there is a application security test that each submission goes through. 17:50:32 <dustymabe> davdunc: ok, i just worry since it's every two weeks 17:50:41 <dustymabe> davdunc: we'll keep a tight feedback loop 17:50:51 <davdunc> agreed 17:51:02 <jberkus> MP? 17:51:10 <dustymabe> marketplace 17:51:11 <maxamillion> Marketplace 17:51:14 <jberkus> ah 17:51:14 <davdunc> jberkus: I abbreviated. 17:51:22 <jberkus> we should announce when it's available 17:51:34 <davdunc> for sure. I'll put together a blog post. 17:52:23 <davdunc> and fyi, it's a personal contribution, not directly tied to the day job. 17:52:34 <dustymabe> davdunc: +1 17:52:35 <jberkus> #action davdunc to blog AWS MP availability of FAH/Cloud. 17:52:45 <jberkus> davdunc: let's put it on the atomic blog then 17:52:48 <jberkus> makes that clear 17:52:52 <dustymabe> should we try to put out that blog on one of our platforms? 17:53:11 <dustymabe> jberkus: maybe it should be a fedora publication (i assume this applies to the base cloud images as well??) 17:53:12 <davdunc> dustymabe: that's where it belongs. IMO. 17:53:14 <kushal> dustymabe, We should share the link to the blog. 17:53:28 <jberkus> dustymabe: yah, maybe 17:53:33 <jberkus> however I have one more thing 17:53:47 <dustymabe> davdunc: can you update the atomic-wg ticket about marketplace with this information? 17:53:53 <davdunc> I can. 17:54:02 <jberkus> New Item: The server blades originally intended for FOSP are finally ready 17:54:14 <jberkus> this is ~~ 9mo after we wanted them 17:54:19 <jberkus> FOSP is no longer a thing 17:54:24 <gholms> Heh 17:54:29 <jberkus> so infra wants to know: what do we want to do with them? 17:54:55 <jberkus> testing? openshift hosting? something else? 17:55:24 <jbrooks> FOSP is no longer a time? 17:55:26 <jbrooks> thing 17:55:44 <jbrooks> I thought we were just waiting for hw all this time 17:56:00 <dustymabe> jberkus: 1. i think we should 1st decide if we want to give the hardware away, 2. find an appropriate candidate for the donation. 17:56:28 <dustymabe> we should probably work with matt miller and paul frields once we get to #2 17:56:31 <kushal> Fedora infra team maybe :) 17:56:31 <dustymabe> if 17:56:34 <jberkus> dustymabe: not really an option, they're blades and the chassis doesn't belong to us 17:56:41 <jberkus> oh, that kind of give 17:57:06 <davdunc> brb.. bird in the house. 17:57:06 <jberkus> jbrooks: well, most of the folks who were working on FOSP have moved on 17:57:49 <jberkus> I think we should exhaust testing/hosting options first before we give them away 17:57:50 <jbrooks> jberkus, Hmm, ok, I didn't realize it went away 17:57:52 <maxamillion> which was basically the concern of FOSP in the first place ... if someone left, who'd be left to manage it? 17:58:05 <jbrooks> Who was leading it? 17:58:13 <dustymabe> i think jzb to begin with 17:58:14 <jberkus> for example, if we did have a FAO cluster rebuilding every week 17:58:30 <jberkus> it could be used to test FLIBS containers for OpenShift, for example 17:58:51 <jberkus> as well as testing that FAO works every week 17:59:09 <jberkus> as an example 17:59:20 <dustymabe> yeah - going to take a bit of thought 17:59:27 <dustymabe> jberkus: let's get together and brainstorm 17:59:32 <dustymabe> maybe next week 17:59:33 <jberkus> ok, I'm going to raise it on atomic-devel 17:59:40 <jberkus> please comment 17:59:55 <jberkus> out of time now 17:59:59 <jberkus> #endmeeting