15:02:54 <langdon> #startmeeting modularity wg
15:02:54 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 31 15:02:54 2016 UTC.  The chair is langdon. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:54 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:02:54 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'modularity_wg'
15:03:08 * langdon also notes he has never actually "run" a meeting in channel
15:03:19 <langdon> #chairs langdon
15:03:28 * lkocman #sits lkocman
15:03:29 <maxamillion> langdon: we have faith
15:03:32 <bconoboy> langdon: give chair to a few more (space separated) so we can take notes for you
15:03:34 <langdon> please say hello and let us know you are here :)
15:03:41 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
15:03:42 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
15:03:43 <nils> .hello nphilipp
15:03:43 <jwb> hi
15:03:44 <zodbot> nils: nphilipp 'Nils Philippsen' <nphilipp@redhat.com>
15:03:45 <maxamillion> #topic roll call
15:03:48 <langdon> #chairs langdon bconoboy
15:03:49 <bconoboy> .hello blc@
15:03:50 <zodbot> bconoboy: Sorry, but you don't exist
15:03:55 <bconoboy> .hello blc
15:03:56 <langdon> #topic roll call
15:03:58 <zodbot> bconoboy: blc 'Brendan Conoboy' <blc@redhat.com>
15:03:59 <maxamillion> langdon: +1
15:04:07 * tflink is lurking but has another meeting in this timeslot
15:04:09 <contyk> .hello contyk
15:04:11 <lkocman> .hello lkocman
15:04:11 <zodbot> contyk: Sorry, but you don't exist
15:04:14 <zodbot> lkocman: lkocman 'None' <lkocman@luboskocman.com>
15:04:16 <langdon> #chairs langdon blc
15:04:16 <contyk> .hello psabata
15:04:20 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' <psabata@redhat.com>
15:04:21 <sctw> .hello sct
15:04:26 <zodbot> sctw: sct 'Stephen Tweedie' <sct@redhat.com>
15:04:27 <langdon> .hello langdon
15:04:29 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@fishjump.com>
15:04:38 <geppetto> .hello james
15:04:39 <zodbot> geppetto: james 'James Antill' <james.antill@redhat.com>
15:04:49 <bconoboy> #chairs langdon blc jwb sctw
15:04:53 <haraldh> .hello harald
15:04:55 <mattdm> .hello  mattdm
15:04:56 <zodbot> haraldh: harald 'Harald Hoyer' <harald@redhat.com>
15:04:57 <haraldh> .hello haraldh
15:04:59 <zodbot> mattdm: mattdm 'Matthew Miller' <mattdm@mattdm.org>
15:05:02 <zodbot> haraldh: Sorry, but you don't exist
15:05:24 <langdon> anyone else want chair and have ZODBOT POWERS?!!??!?!
15:05:45 <haraldh> I am already sitting :)
15:05:54 <lkocman> langdon: can I have power over zodbot instead?
15:06:12 * lkocman doesn’t really need any powers
15:06:15 <langdon> lkocman, haraldh ha
15:06:47 <langdon> ok.. so.. for the agenda.. I am gonna say "intros are covered"
15:07:02 <langdon> anyone who is still showing up, still feel free to "say .hello"
15:07:12 <msrb> .hello msrb
15:07:12 <langdon> #topic context setting
15:07:12 <zodbot> msrb: msrb 'Michal Srb' <msrb@redhat.com>
15:07:35 <msekleta> .hello msekleta
15:07:37 <zodbot> msekleta: msekleta 'Michal Sekletar' <msekleta@redhat.com>
15:07:44 <langdon> ok.. so I want to give a little context on the WG and the meeting.. not so much on modularization
15:08:00 <langdon> if you want to know more about modularization please start on the wiki here:
15:08:12 <langdon> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Modularization
15:08:19 <langdon> #info modularization wiki page
15:08:34 <langdon> as for the WG, we have some info here:
15:08:38 <langdon> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Modularity_Working_Group
15:08:50 <langdon> #info modularity working group wiki page
15:09:51 <sgallagh> /me lurks
15:09:58 <langdon> so.. the plan is, i would like to get the working group going, preferably with deliverables, as soon as we can.. i have some engineers to work on stuff (mostly here) and I don't want them to get bored :)
15:10:26 <mattdm> langdon++
15:10:30 <langdon> so the working group needs a set of voting members.. to ratify decisions .. but not necessarily to do all the work..
15:10:54 <langdon> most of the other working groups have 7 voting members.. and, as a result, that is what i would propose for this one..
15:10:57 <langdon> thoughts?
15:11:18 <langdon> mattdm, thanks for the obvious missing piece of info in my email :)
15:11:18 <bconoboy> Are we going to close self nominations early? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Modularity_Working_Group/Initial_Nominations
15:11:22 <hhorak> I like 7
15:11:28 <contyk> seven's a lucky number
15:11:39 <lkocman> sieben sounds cool
15:11:59 <langdon> bconoboy, i was thinking if we said "7" was the right number, I would propose closing the noms early cause we already have ~11
15:12:07 * adamw is lurking in case needed, but not volunteering for nothing
15:12:20 <langdon> ok.. so.. give 7 voting members a +1?
15:12:22 <mattdm> 7 is good as long as quorum can be met regularly
15:12:24 <sgallagh> langdon: Picking a nomination date and then closing it early is rarely a good idea
15:12:29 <langdon> any -1s?
15:12:33 <nils> sgallagh++
15:12:34 <zodbot> nils: Karma for sgallagh changed to 10 (for the f23 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:12:35 <lkocman> langdon: can the roles cycle during modularity lifetime?
15:12:36 <langdon> sgallagh, yeah.. i hear ya
15:12:43 <lkocman> langdon: like some people might be useful in different phases
15:12:47 <langdon> #topic number of voting members
15:13:14 <sgallagh> /me notes that in Fedora elections, we often have more trouble with people *just missing* the deadline. Moving up the deadline unilaterally would be bad.
15:13:15 <bconoboy> Is everybody who self nominated specifically interested in voting, or just participating?
15:13:16 <nils> Isn't the idea of nomination that people have some choices whom to give their vote or something?
15:13:21 <langdon> lkocman, well... i think we also need "term of service" .. maybe 6 months?
15:13:36 <lkocman> langdon: that’s what I asked for. Cool!
15:13:39 <mattdm> This depends partly on the voting model. Majority of 7? Majority of quorum?
15:13:42 <langdon> #topic number of voting members & term of service
15:14:10 * jreznik is here
15:14:13 <sgallagh> lkocman: Might I suggest that the first order of business might be to just select a small group (maybe three people) to develop a potential governance charter and then try to approve that by consensus at the next meeting?
15:14:30 <lkocman> sgallagh: yeah … indirect vote. Sounds cool to me
15:14:40 <lkocman> sgallagh: would the small group elect others?
15:14:43 <sgallagh> Building a governance charter by committee over IRC seems like it'll get hairy.
15:14:51 <jreznik> sgallagh: +1
15:15:03 <langdon> sgallagh, pshaw.. i thought it sounded like fun :)
15:15:09 <geppetto> Can we not just stea^W copy one from any of the other groups
15:15:21 <mattdm> +1 to stealing!
15:15:24 <mattdm> copying
15:15:25 <sgallagh> geppetto: Well, using them as a starting point is probably a good idea.
15:15:35 <langdon> geppetto, that's kinda what i was thinking.. steal server-wg.. and sgallagh can tell us how it works :)
15:15:48 <geppetto> +1 langdon
15:15:58 <geppetto> ;)
15:16:05 <sgallagh> The way we generated those in the first place was that one person assumed responsibility for selecting a team to build the governance structure and then we had their output approved by the Board.\
15:16:12 <langdon> i think adamw said above he wanted to volunteer to write it up ;)
15:16:39 <sgallagh> If you want to vote on taking the Server WG governance as-is, that's perfectly reasonable.
15:16:53 <langdon> sgallagh, well.. the council said that was me.. but.. here is what i am thinking
15:16:57 <sgallagh> Since there's no official voting role right now, decision-by-acclamation sounds about right to me
15:17:23 <sgallagh> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter
15:17:25 <sgallagh> (For the record)
15:17:41 <sgallagh> Ugh, I meant to update that page...
15:17:45 <sgallagh> (Wrong membership list)
15:18:42 <langdon> 7 members, quorum makes decisions stick by majority of attendees, most decisions made on ML by lazy consensus, 6 months (for now) "term of service"..
15:19:09 * langdon notes we may need ticket-system for decisions..
15:19:22 <langdon> sgallagh, thats basically server-wg, right? (like what I said above)
15:19:57 <langdon> although i see server requires 5 votes .. not quorum
15:20:31 <sgallagh> Well, we also go for lazy consensus.
15:20:47 <sgallagh> Voting is basically a last-resort if we were unable to agree upon something
15:20:54 <langdon> sgallagh, right.. but if a meeting is called, you have to have 5 votes..
15:21:03 <sgallagh> Correct
15:21:18 <sgallagh> (In reality, it's usually "consensus among the people at the meeting")
15:21:25 <sgallagh> With a five-person minimum
15:21:54 <langdon> sgallagh, gotcha
15:22:21 <langdon> ok.. so anyone here not in favor of what I proposed above? or changes to what I have above?
15:22:36 <sgallagh> I think the only time we didn't get consensus was when we picked PostgreSQL over MariaDB for the database server role.
15:22:39 <sgallagh> And I think that was 7-2
15:23:00 <sctw> langdon: wfm
15:23:26 <langdon> sgallagh, ha.. i woulda voted for sql-server ;) jk
15:23:30 <sgallagh> langdon: You're defining "term of service" without defining a selection mechanism.
15:23:37 <hhorak> langdon: :-D
15:23:40 <langdon> ahh.. right
15:25:07 <langdon> ok.. the initial WG was set with me just picking the peeps.. i was thinking we would start with that.. then let the WG decide by vote on changes.. i like the server wg model of "if i want to drop i do" and then convince someone to replace them.. i guess for "term of service" i meant more like "please commit to at least 6 months of participation"...
15:25:17 <jwb> didn't we just say that the governance should be worked out not in this meeting?
15:25:33 <jwb> i mean, this is great and all but we're 25min in and we have over 1/2 the agenda to still get to
15:25:37 <langdon> jwb, i was saying mostly just steal entirely from server-wg
15:26:14 <sgallagh> jwb: I suggested that, but it didn't seem to get traction.
15:27:17 <jwb> if we aren't closing nominations early, there's time to sort this out on-list.
15:27:21 <langdon> im ok with setting another slot to do governance.. should we just invite everyone again? or do some people want to volunteer to work on that specifically?
15:27:36 <langdon> jwb, point.. we could do it on the ML..
15:27:37 <jwb> if we aren't closing nominations early, there's time to sort this out on-list.
15:27:58 <jwb> (sorry, my IRC client is having issues)
15:28:26 <langdon> ok.. anyone want to volunteer to write up a slightly modified server-wg wiki page for this group? and then we can take that to the ML?
15:28:49 * langdon hears crickets :)
15:28:53 * bconoboy eyes mattdm
15:29:11 <langdon> here i was hinting at sgallagh :)
15:29:34 <langdon> ok.. ill do it.. or see if i can find someone else too.. but lets move on
15:29:35 * mattdm shrugs, looks shifty
15:29:49 <sgallagh> langdon: Sorry, I really don't have the available cycles right now
15:29:52 <bconoboy> #agreed langdon will write up a slightly modified server-wg wiki page
15:29:55 <langdon> #action langdon to modify wiki page to show proposed governance and then send to mailing list for approval
15:30:15 <bconoboy> oops, meant action
15:30:18 * langdon goes to find agenda wiki page
15:30:30 <langdon> ok..
15:30:36 <langdon> #topic when should the meetings be
15:30:52 <langdon> i think weekly "now" works for me.. other proposals?
15:31:18 * langdon notes proposal to close nominations early seems premature
15:31:38 <bconoboy> this time works great for me
15:31:45 <contyk> works for me too
15:31:47 <sctw> Weekly is a good start, we can change that if we need to
15:32:01 <sctw> and now works for me (though I'll be unavailable next week)
15:32:18 <langdon> sctw, +1 .. per proposed governance.. i hope we will get to "call em when we need em" but for now.. i think we need something regular
15:32:54 <langdon> ok.. any -1s?
15:33:20 <langdon> particularly from the people who haven't said much yet?
15:33:25 <bconoboy> Perhaps stick with this time and day until nominations do close, then reassess?
15:33:27 * langdon eyes mikedep333
15:33:35 <langdon> bconoboy, yeah.. i like that
15:33:50 <geppetto> just make sure langdon fixes the invites ;)
15:34:07 <langdon> geppetto, ha.. yeah.. well.. you know.. calendaring is not my best skill
15:34:30 <langdon> ok.. im gonna call that agreed
15:34:44 <haraldh> +1 for weekly ... this particular time works also for me
15:34:54 <langdon> #agreed meeting time is weekly on thursdays at 15h UTC
15:35:11 <langdon> #action langdon to update fedocal "correctly"
15:35:37 <langdon> #topic what to deliver & when
15:36:17 <langdon> i think this is probably a big topic.. but, I think the original proposal by mattdm of something like a prototype by f25 was a good idea.. i like having something to strive for
15:36:38 <mattdm> \o/
15:36:40 <langdon> however, I also think.. this is something that should evolve from the work
15:37:11 <mattdm> especially if there are actual demos on an ongoing basis.
15:37:34 <langdon> yeah.. so maybe we should jump to the "how" and come back to the "what"?
15:38:08 <bconoboy> either way
15:38:18 <langdon> #topic how to do stuff
15:39:58 <langdon> so.. i had proposed using using an agile-y approach to this.. with sprints, and cards, and regular demos.. using taiga (in fedora-infra) to manage it..
15:40:17 * masta looks in
15:40:18 <lkocman> langdon: prototype by f25? you’ve told me it needs to be done two weeks ago :-)
15:41:17 <langdon> one problem with that is, for anyone who isn't fully dedicated, how do you participate in a sprint.. and, I was thinking, there would be cards had tasks for a little further out .. say 4-6 weeks.. and if you could spend "some time" on them.. but still hit a sprint cycle.. that would work too
15:42:10 <langdon> basically.. that work still drops in on a sprint cycle basis.. but people wouldn't have to deliver a card in a sprint.. but could commit to a card in 2-3 sprints..
15:42:21 <lkocman> langdon: agree you can’t expect non-rh people to perform one week sprints
15:42:21 <langdon> hopefully i am making sense..
15:42:45 <geppetto> yeh
15:43:05 <langdon> lkocman, actually.. even rh people.. like anyone who is not 100% on the project.. we need a way to let people participate, but not be full time, but, also, not block the people who are full time
15:43:39 <langdon> comments? thoughts? /me knows he talks super fast
15:43:59 <sctw> langdon: How would demos work?  That's one thing that is hard to do over IRC
15:44:14 <contyk> no idea whether it's going to work but why not at least try it...
15:44:38 <geppetto> building more modules could be done like that … but maybe we don't want to have those in taiga … so maybe a todo list of modules we'd like somewhere else?
15:44:50 <geppetto> Not much else comes to mind right now, that could be done outside.
15:44:53 <lkocman> langdon: well you can always say that some tasks will be e.g. only even sprint
15:44:54 <lkocman> or so
15:45:01 <sctw> geppetto: I still think taiga is useful even for longer term todo lists like that
15:45:02 <lkocman> based on person who is attached to card
15:45:26 <langdon> geppetto, yeah.. i was thinking that too.. but first we need to have a "way to build them" or docs or something... the list for now is just gonna be "things that we think might break the concept"
15:45:32 <sctw> geppetto: so you can see who has accepted which tasks, and get updates on how they are proceeding; and splitting that tracking over multiple ticketing systems sounds unpleasant
15:46:11 <geppetto> sctw: I just wasn't sure if having lots of module tasks in taiga would make it less usable
15:46:18 <bconoboy> we could do demos in hangouts
15:46:22 <langdon> sctw, good point.. i guess I was thinking.. we don't need to decide yet.. cause we don't know how to tell people to build them yet :)
15:46:36 <sctw> geppetto: Yeah, I don't know how it will scale either
15:46:54 <haraldh> stupid question: what is taiga?
15:46:58 <langdon> demos: hangouts could work.. or, pre-recorded, with irc discussion
15:47:11 <langdon> haraldh, a open source kanban/scrum tool..
15:47:18 <langdon> deployed in fedora infra /me digs for link
15:47:21 <sctw> #link http://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/project/langdon-modularity/ Modularity taiga board
15:47:22 <contyk> wouldn't that require a Google account? I don't think everyone would like that
15:47:36 <langdon> #link http://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/
15:47:43 <langdon> sctw, be me to it
15:47:50 <langdon> *beat
15:48:02 <sctw> contyk: Right, that's my concern.  demos are hard using just floss tools; maybe a static webcast alongside an IRC session might work?  Requires a bit more prep effort, though.
15:48:31 <langdon> demos: i was thinking they could be prerecorded... then a meeting is called to discuss them.. assuming the demo-authors sent links out or something 24hs in advance
15:48:33 <sctw> I can do hangout but wouldn't want to assume everybody involved would be happy with it.
15:49:13 <langdon> but i am not sure if it is extra effort to record them..
15:49:24 <geppetto> The ceph people upload developer meeting videos … anyone know if they use hangouts or bluejeans?
15:49:24 <msrb> +1 for hangouts
15:49:27 <mattdm> recordings would be _awesome_
15:50:23 <langdon> so.. part of the voting members job would be to watch the videos, and attend the demo-meeting to comment (or send an email or something)..
15:50:55 <langdon> cause .. if it is agile-y .. we need feedback on the demos.. as well as the demos to force the "always shipping code" concept
15:51:10 <langdon> feedback helps set the direction
15:51:16 <sctw> langdon: +1, planning and demos are the two most important parts of the "agile way" for voting members to attend
15:52:52 <langdon> so... thoughts? i didn't hear any serious push back on trying to do it agile.. with planning for each sprint (aka people come to the planning meeting and choose a card to work on); demos at the end of each sprint (how is still a little open); and some sort of grooming (writing the cards, making sure they stay relevant) on a regular basis..
15:53:00 <lkocman> langdon: also note that if for some reason you can
15:53:08 <lkocman> can’t get taiga to work with fas
15:53:24 <lkocman> just create it without fas account … for some reason I wasn’t able to link my fas account with taiga correctly
15:53:50 <masta> lkocman, https://github.com/fedora-infra/taiga-contrib-fas-openid-auth
15:53:55 <langdon> taiga deployment seems to work much better for you to go 1) login once using fas; 2) ask someone to add you to modify the board/take cards .. but pre-invite does not seem to work well
15:54:03 <haraldh> lkocman, worked for me
15:54:18 <lkocman> haraldh: yeah but you have @redhat.com email with your fas
15:54:29 <contyk> also, according to https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5187, you need to use the address set in FAS, not the FAS mail itself
15:54:41 <contyk> there are some issues, yes
15:54:43 <lkocman> haraldh: I had lkocman@luboskocman.com linked first … then had to change it in fas since invitation was sent to my @redhat.com and for some reason taiga couldn’t stand that
15:54:48 <langdon> so.. everyone should be able to see it right now (even without login).. and add stuff (with login) .. but you have to be "assigned to the project" to be able to assign yourself tasks
15:54:54 <lkocman> even when the email was changed to @redhat.com in both taiga/fas
15:55:34 <langdon> so.. suffice to say.. join the way i said above.. and avoid lkocman's pain..
15:55:45 * langdon should probably info that
15:56:07 <langdon> #info  taiga deployment seems to work much better for you to go 1) login once using fas; 2) ask someone to add you to modify the board/take cards .. but pre-invite does not seem to work well
15:56:39 <langdon> ok.. can i get some +1s or -1s for the approach? assuming we figure out how to demo later?
15:57:04 <bconoboy> I'm +1 on taiga for now
15:57:14 <sctw> +1 in general, for taiga and agile
15:57:20 <contyk> +1
15:57:25 <lkocman> +1
15:57:26 <nils> +1
15:57:27 <sctw> and yes, demo seems to be the main thing to figure out
15:57:31 <haraldh> +1
15:57:32 <masta> meh +1
15:57:39 <langdon> masta, lol :)
15:57:42 <langdon> ok
15:58:03 <langdon> #agreed agile-y approach, using taiga, potentially modifiable by the WG voting members
15:58:18 <haraldh> how to get a member of the taiga?
15:58:21 <langdon> #action wg needs to write up the details of the approach
15:58:27 <langdon> haraldh, member?
15:58:31 <haraldh> team member
15:58:44 <langdon> #action wg needs to solve how to demo
15:59:35 <langdon> haraldh, i am not sure i follow the q.. how do you "take cards" in taiga? thats what i was saying above.. you should log in to taiga.. then email me, and ask me to add you to the list.. i don't think we can make that like a fas group of admins yet...
15:59:55 <haraldh> ah, email you.. ok
16:00:00 <haraldh> sry
16:00:20 <lkocman> langdon: becomming true taiga ninja blog post could be useful
16:00:24 <langdon> that might be a reason to have a modularity ml.. aka.. modularity-admin .. where people could send a note and say "i need taiga access" or whatever
16:00:33 <langdon> lkocman, good idea..
16:01:04 <langdon> lkocman, i was thinking of an "onboarding wiki page" as well
16:01:08 <lkocman> yup
16:01:17 <langdon> ok.. basically out of time..
16:01:25 <geppetto> langdon: What do we email you?
16:01:50 <geppetto> I guess the @foo … from your profile?
16:01:57 <langdon> so .. for now, i think the what do we deliver ... we should table..
16:02:20 <langdon> geppetto, yeah.. the target of your me@fp.o email .. like where it redirects to
16:03:03 <langdon> #info to join the taiga project and take cards: 1) login in to taiga using fas; 2) send email to langdon@fp.o with your *target* email address for your me@fp.o acccount
16:03:10 <langdon> ^^ makes sense?
16:04:17 <langdon> ok.. gonna wrap it up.. unless someone wants to volunteer to update the wiki with some of this info?
16:04:33 <langdon> or if someone wants to ask anything or discuss anything else?
16:04:47 <langdon> i actually have some more time.. so I can keep the log running if people want to discuss
16:05:18 <langdon> oh.. one more big thing..
16:05:25 <langdon> #info we have #fedora-modularization for discussion.. so please join us there any time
16:05:39 <langdon> also mentioned on the wiki.. but wanted to get it in to the logs
16:06:04 <langdon> ok.. closing meeting in 1 minute...
16:06:45 <langdon> 30s
16:06:59 * langdon notes times is slow when watching seconds on a clock
16:07:06 <langdon> 10s
16:07:28 <langdon> #endmeeting