19:00:22 <mattdm> #startmeeting Cloud (2013-10-30)
19:00:22 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 30 19:00:22 2013 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:22 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:32 * samkottler is present
19:00:45 <mattdm> #chair mattdm samkottler  number80  red_trela  hguemar
19:00:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: hguemar mattdm number80 red_trela samkottler
19:00:48 * geppetto is here
19:00:53 * mattdm is going to have to learn a bunch more irc nicks
19:00:59 <mattdm> #addchair geppetto
19:01:13 <mattdm> (does that not work?)
19:01:19 <mattdm> .addchair geppetto
19:01:19 <zodbot> mattdm: Error: You don't have the admin capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
19:01:26 <mattdm> awesome.
19:01:33 <mattdm> blah blah blah irc bot
19:01:36 <sgallagh> mattdm #chair
19:01:37 <nirik> mattdm: you want #chair name
19:01:46 <mattdm> #chair geppetto
19:01:46 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto hguemar mattdm number80 red_trela samkottler
19:02:00 <jzb> howdy all
19:02:02 <mattdm> #topic Intro
19:02:09 <mattdm> #chair jzb
19:02:09 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto hguemar jzb mattdm number80 red_trela samkottler
19:02:16 * frankieonuonga waves
19:02:20 <mattdm> #chair frankieonuonga
19:02:20 <zodbot> Current chairs: frankieonuonga geppetto hguemar jzb mattdm number80 red_trela samkottler
19:02:26 * frankieonuonga is here
19:02:32 <mattdm> robyn?
19:02:47 <red_trela> rbergeron that is
19:03:06 <frankieonuonga> a big hello from nairobi, Kenya
19:03:17 <mattdm> mrunge can't make it
19:04:17 <mattdm> waiting a minute to see if rbergeron is around...
19:04:30 <frankieonuonga> not a problem..lets give guys a min to log in
19:05:18 <rbergeron> sorry, was on the telephono
19:05:21 <rbergeron> i am here
19:05:23 <mattdm> okay!
19:05:26 <mattdm> #chair rbergeron
19:05:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: frankieonuonga geppetto hguemar jzb mattdm number80 rbergeron red_trela samkottler
19:05:31 <mattdm> #topic Mailing List vs. IRC Meetings
19:05:42 <mattdm> First order of business, because I wrote things down in that order...
19:05:53 <mattdm> How important do we think it is to have regular IRC meetings?
19:06:15 <mattdm> On the one hand, it's kind of a pain, and it is hard to get everyone organized, and it's not necessarily more bandwidth than email even if lower latency
19:06:15 <frankieonuonga> I think starting off it will be necessary to have one every week
19:06:31 <mattdm> On the other hand, it can help establish a cadence of things moving forward
19:06:36 <samkottler> I think it's pretty important, but maybe we can switch to biweekly once things are actually under way and people items to work on
19:06:52 <number80> irc meetings are better for decision-making
19:06:56 <rbergeron> yeah - there's something about having a fire under your butt to get something done, in the form of an impending meeting
19:07:08 <mattdm> *sigh*
19:07:16 <mattdm> okay, that seems like we should probably do it. :)
19:07:32 <mattdm> I will send out another whenisgood to try and find a more permanent time
19:07:41 <mattdm> where permanent = until janurary at least.
19:07:42 <frankieonuonga> number80: also putting people on their toes :-)
19:07:43 <rbergeron> but i do agree with sam - i suspect over time it will be less urgent
19:07:47 <red_trela> once the US has left DST ;)
19:07:48 <number80> A+1
19:07:53 <mattdm> red_trela right. :)
19:07:57 <rbergeron> and we may find that we wind up being fairly productive anyway starting off and it may not be necessary
19:08:19 <mattdm> #agreed weekly irc meetings to start.
19:08:27 <number80> Anyway, topic should be discussed first on the list
19:08:42 <mattdm> +1 number80
19:08:52 <mattdm> bringing things into irc cold just makes for long meetings
19:08:55 * red_trela will make IRC meetings seriously hard by moving to tokyo in January
19:09:05 <mattdm> red_trela awesome.
19:09:30 <mattdm> maybe we'll have to alternate late and early meetings for each side of the globe.
19:09:34 <red_trela> just figured a 10-12h distribution of folks isn't enough, so why not go for the full 24h :)
19:09:35 <samkottler> I think we know who is gonna get to stay up late for meetings, thenk :)
19:09:36 <mattdm> but let's figure that out in january
19:09:37 <samkottler> then**
19:09:47 <frankieonuonga> I think we can be doing a switch in time every two weeks to assist guys in other time zones
19:10:03 <rbergeron> yes - i see it more like a checkpoint/coordination than a "$topic: DISCUSS" type of meeting
19:10:22 <mattdm> #info more like a checkpoint/coordination than a "$topic: DISCUSS" type of meeting
19:10:36 <mattdm> #info "$topic: DISCUSS"  should be on the mailing list
19:10:53 <mattdm> #action mattdm will coordinate time for next/ongoing meeting
19:11:02 <mattdm> next topic?
19:11:02 <number80> thanks
19:11:07 <mattdm> #topic Trac Instance
19:11:20 <mattdm> uh, i made one.
19:11:23 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/
19:11:38 <mattdm> anyone want to be added as trac admin, let me know
19:11:49 <frankieonuonga> mattdm: thanks I saw that
19:11:58 <frankieonuonga> thanks for taking it up
19:12:10 <rbergeron> yay cloud (trac)
19:12:17 <mattdm> I'm not sure there's _actually_ much more to say about this. we'll figure out how we want to actually use it
19:12:26 <number80> mattdm: i can help you, i'm used administrating trac :)
19:12:39 <samkottler> mattdm: do we want to manage the backlog of work for the cloud images in there?
19:12:48 <number80> (as long as it's not redmine)
19:13:04 <mattdm> samkottler sure, might as well.
19:13:10 <rbergeron> samkottler: you mean the things needed to fix them / make them better?
19:13:15 <samkottler> rbergeron: yep
19:13:20 <red_trela> and our tasks, too?
19:13:30 <samkottler> mattdm: not that I have anything - there just isn't a home for tasks related to the images right now
19:13:41 <frankieonuonga> I will go wit we put all work up…mark it as back log so we know it needs to be cleared as fast as possible
19:13:43 <mattdm> trac has a rudementary ability to separate different things by categories
19:13:44 <rbergeron> samkottler: probably (imo, anyway) - but we may want to actually scope everything out before we "know what's best" ;)
19:14:00 <number80> anything process related to the cloud product should be there (and linked to RHBZ tickets if needed)
19:14:10 <samkottler> rbergeron: oh agreed, it was more of a general q rather than "I wanna fix these things"
19:14:29 <mattdm> samkottler the current home of anything that doesn't apply to a particular package (eg cloud-init) is "a list i have", which is not so awesome
19:14:29 <rbergeron> mattdm: yeah, i can help as well if needed, though it seems like number80 may have those bases covered
19:14:37 * rbergeron has done her fair share of groups and milestones and etc etc etc
19:14:54 <mattdm> #info adding rbergeron and number80 as trac admins, will add others who want to be bothered with it on request :)
19:14:56 * frankieonuonga would love to learn how to do this
19:15:05 <mattdm> #info for example frankieonuonga
19:15:15 <samkottler> heh
19:15:17 * frankieonuonga wondering if i can assist so as to learn
19:15:25 <mattdm> frankieonuonga yes, of course.
19:15:35 <mattdm> anything else on trac?
19:15:38 <number80> frankieonuonga: step up and ask if you need help :)
19:15:46 <rbergeron> nada. i think we'll find our uses for it going forwards, certainly
19:15:53 <mattdm> #topic Draft Governance
19:15:55 <frankieonuonga> number80: will be on your case as soona s we are done with this meeting :-)
19:15:59 <mattdm> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_WG
19:16:17 <mattdm> josh (jwb) made the nice point on the mailing list that some of this should be lifted out to a higher level document
19:16:36 <mattdm> specifically, mission, role, and communications sections
19:16:43 <mattdm> which makes sense to me
19:16:57 <rbergeron> +1
19:16:59 <jwb> i just thought the URL looked like what should be the landing page
19:17:01 <number80> +1
19:17:17 <red_trela> +1
19:17:43 <mattdm> jwb even if you just meant the url it applies to the content too :)
19:18:03 <mattdm> #action mattdm will reorganize 'landing page' aspects of current draft into actual landing page
19:18:09 <frankieonuonga> I think we need to borrow from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure
19:18:19 <frankieonuonga> conceptual design that is
19:18:30 <mattdm> #idea borrow from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure
19:18:36 <mattdm> yeah, that's nicely done.
19:19:31 <mattdm> i'll make a separate governance page and someone else can jump in on reorganizing the landing page along those lines
19:19:45 <mattdm> on the content .....
19:19:49 <mattdm> thoughts on membership selection?
19:19:56 <frankieonuonga> I can work on the landing page
19:19:59 <frankieonuonga> not a problem at all
19:20:02 <number80> tough question
19:20:12 <jzb> mattdm: what's precedent?
19:20:28 <mattdm> basically 1. fesco-like (elections)  2. fpc-like (appointed meritocracy). 3. other
19:20:43 <mattdm> jzb for which?
19:20:57 <jzb> mattdm: membership selection :-)
19:21:10 <mattdm> jzb uncharted territory!
19:21:16 <samkottler> mattdm: the idea of meritocracy seems like the best way IMO
19:21:17 <number80> mattdm: 1. is ok when you have a strong community 2. better for consistency
19:21:35 <number80> i'm not sure of the current state of our cloud community
19:21:37 <samkottler> current members choose new members based on their proposals so there's some idea of the trajectory in the future
19:21:46 <frankieonuonga> I think this can be looked at after the community grows
19:22:00 <number80> i tend to agree with frankieonuonga
19:22:01 <samkottler> well it has to be part of our governance document
19:22:07 <samkottler> unless I'm mistaken
19:22:19 <red_trela> there's also a risk of the current members only choosing new members that share their opinions, i.e. it could get unbalanced
19:22:20 <rbergeron> I am happy with less voting, more doing, IMO
19:22:23 <frankieonuonga> I think if we include it now..it will be tricky.
19:22:35 <mattdm> I think we do have to include it now.
19:22:36 <frankieonuonga> i think we say guys go in for two years or whatever time
19:22:43 <red_trela> I think it should be the same for all three product WGs
19:22:49 <frankieonuonga> after that when community grown to a certain number…say 50 then we have elections
19:23:00 <frankieonuonga> changing leaders too often in initial stages can be dangerous
19:23:13 <mattdm> 50 who, though?
19:23:35 <frankieonuonga> I think we will have to set up all frameworks…get things going…then when things are good now tell the community here it is ..you decide
19:23:45 <frankieonuonga> I was just giving a number
19:23:48 <frankieonuonga> as an example
19:23:57 <frankieonuonga> I have no clue how many people will want
19:24:07 <samkottler> there really isn't any way to measure the community in that way
19:24:15 <samkottler> 50 people who are doing what, for example?
19:24:31 <number80> good question :/
19:24:44 <samkottler> and what if say...the community doesn't grow?
19:24:50 <samkottler> then we don't have a selection process?
19:24:59 <mattdm> then we should *definitely* kick out the current membership
19:25:03 <samkottler> IMO we need a process and to decide on it sooner rather than later
19:25:12 <jzb> samkottler: +1
19:25:16 <mattdm> So, let's do this one by vote.
19:25:20 <number80> mattdm: +1 if we fail, i'll step down
19:25:25 <mattdm> Anyone want to put forth a proposal?
19:25:25 <rbergeron> i honestly don't even see the need to require a certain number of people, unless it's a "bare minimum, below which we have to accept that nobody is interested in doing the work" ....
19:25:33 <jzb> is it possible to have a FAS group where that group is the one that votes?
19:25:34 <rbergeron> let alone fancy elections ;)
19:25:47 <mattdm> jzb yes, theoretically
19:25:48 <rbergeron> jzb: that is what it is now - you just need to specify the group
19:25:55 <samkottler> okay one more question before the proposal
19:25:58 <number80> jzb: if it's not possible, we could hack it into the elections app
19:25:59 <nirik> and someone needs to maintain who's in it.
19:26:03 <rbergeron> only people in the cla group can vote, etc etc
19:26:13 <samkottler> is the fesco repo tied to their re-election to fesco?
19:26:16 <jzb> gotcha
19:26:30 <samkottler> i.e. in a world where mattdm (unlikely) doesn't get re-elected, who is the new rep? they get appointed?
19:26:58 <mattdm> samkottler I don't think it is. we ended up selecting non-fesco members as liaisons for 2 of the 5 groups.
19:27:34 <number80> as we represent fesco, 1 seat should be alloted to a fesco member
19:27:35 <mattdm> *and* in fesco we just agreed that the fesco liaison in the future can be selected by the wg, not fesco
19:27:41 <rbergeron> samkottler: probably more like "they volunteer, we figure it out if more than one person volunteers"
19:28:08 <number80> to me, the WG is better represented at fesco meetings by an actual fesco member
19:28:12 <mattdm> at least one seat _does_ need to be alloted to someone willing to work with fesco as the liaison -- that's part of the Rules
19:29:09 <geppetto> number80: I don't see why they'd need to be a member … but the liaison does need to turn up to FESCO meetings, so if we have a member then that's probably better. But I don't see why we'd require that.
19:29:26 <mattdm> number80 we can make that official if we want, although we may end up in the situation where there are no fesco members able/willing to do it
19:29:39 <number80> geppetto: just in case, the liaison has to vote for cloud matters during fesco meetings
19:30:00 <frankieonuonga> I do not think we want to end up in a situation with no fesco member
19:30:00 <red_trela> it's desirable but should not be enforced
19:30:05 <samkottler> there are lots of way to get involved with fesco without being a voting member
19:30:25 <samkottler> I actually think it's a really good thing for people in the cloud WG to have solid relationships with fesco members who can do work on our behalf
19:30:38 <mattdm> it'd probably be better to have a non-fesco member who really cares about our use cases than a fesco member who was drafted into the role and doens't care
19:30:45 <red_trela> fesco members have a lot on their plate and I'd rather have them do a good job than even more jobs
19:30:51 <number80> samkottler: +1
19:30:55 <samkottler> mattdm: +1
19:31:07 <samkottler> red_trela: exactly
19:31:10 <frankieonuonga> sounds good ..sold … +1
19:31:10 <jzb> mattdm: +1
19:31:11 <rbergeron> So a fesco member is preferred, just for ease / use o ftime  / efficiency - but if there isn't one yelling to volunteer, we find someone willing/able to go represent
19:31:22 * mattdm nods
19:31:24 <samkottler> yes
19:31:24 <number80> rbergeron: +1
19:31:29 <mattdm> rbergeron: +1
19:31:31 <samkottler> should we propose that as an official thing?
19:31:33 <jwb> interesting :)
19:31:35 <rbergeron> a willing / engaged fesco member, to be clear
19:31:37 <samkottler> i.e. should I motion?
19:31:43 <mattdm> go for it
19:31:46 <frankieonuonga> yebo
19:31:55 <geppetto> +1
19:32:07 <number80> anyway, if required, i'll start a cabal to keep mattdm at fesco ;)
19:32:16 <geppetto> ha
19:32:20 <frankieonuonga> :-)
19:32:21 <frankieonuonga> ha ha
19:32:22 <mattdm> lol i hope that won't be necessary!
19:32:25 <samkottler> proposal: the liason to fesco will preferrably a member of fesco, but in the case that there isn't a fesco member willing to work on the behalf of the cloud WG a non-fesco member can be appointed liason
19:32:32 <geppetto> +1
19:32:36 <jzb> number80: remind me to talk to you sometime about cabals and not mentioning them publicly ;-)
19:32:36 <number80> +1
19:32:39 <mattdm> samkottler +1
19:32:45 <frankieonuonga> +1
19:32:50 <jzb> samkottler: +1
19:32:54 <rbergeron> +1
19:33:13 <red_trela> I'd say "can be appointed by the cloud wg"
19:33:27 <red_trela> as opposed to by fesco - just to make it clear
19:33:39 <samkottler> red_trela: I think the subject doing the appointment is fairly clear, but point taken
19:33:46 <samkottler> I think we already had quorum vote yes?
19:33:53 <number80> #agreed the liaison to fesco will preferably be a member of fesco, but in the case there isn't a fesco member willing to work on the behalf of the cloud WF, a non-fesco member can be appointed liaison (samkottler)
19:33:59 <number80> yup
19:34:17 <number80> #undo
19:34:17 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x30d3a990>
19:34:24 <number80> #agreed the liaison to fesco will preferably be a member of fesco, but in the case there isn't a fesco member willing to work on the behalf of the cloud WG, a non-fesco member can be appointed liaison (samkottler)
19:34:36 <mattdm> in the fesco we normally record the number of groups in the agreed lines (+votes, -votes, abstentions)
19:34:43 <mattdm> that seems like a Fine Practice
19:34:55 <number80> mattdm: my bad, i'll remember this :)
19:35:04 <mattdm> number80 :)
19:35:15 <number80> #agreed the liaison to fesco will preferably be a member of fesco, but in the case there isn't a fesco member willing to work on the behalf of the cloud WG, a non-fesco member can be appointed liaison (samkottler) +6
19:35:26 <mattdm> okay, so we skipped around the harder question
19:35:58 <samkottler> membership
19:36:02 <number80> let's go with membership and review it later
19:36:13 <red_trela> uhm, do we have / want a chair? is the liasion chair? who is vice chair? :)
19:36:33 <mattdm> red_trela that is a fine quesiton
19:36:42 <rbergeron> i want the vice chair, but only if it has vices to use while in the chair.
19:36:45 * rbergeron kids
19:36:51 <mattdm> fesco used to have a chair but went to a rotating model
19:37:00 <mattdm> where chair basically means "meeting secretary"
19:37:13 <mattdm> if we had a chair, would there be responsibilities beyond that?
19:37:14 <samkottler> I like the way fesco handles it
19:37:19 <samkottler> prevents people from slacking off
19:37:24 <number80> samkottler: +1
19:37:28 <rbergeron> mattdm: keep driving?
19:37:29 <samkottler> or at least everyone gets to slack off equally :)
19:37:35 <rbergeron> fesco is a bit more .. "request" oriented
19:37:43 <number80> i was finding a proper way to say it without swearing :o)
19:37:46 <mattdm> rbergeron *nod*
19:37:59 <rbergeron> ie: please to review this and think about itt - but they're not just ... tackling random things, usually, and driving forwards new stuff.
19:38:19 * frankieonuonga is here but not commenting on this because I dont think I know what it takes to do management of any sort.
19:38:23 <number80> ok, two things: WG member selection and chair model
19:38:35 <rbergeron> i think this is slightly different, but i think if we just have a clear plan of record, even if it's just that we will collectively come up with the plan of record, it is way easier and less burdensome to have to be that person every week.
19:39:04 <samkottler> yes, the fesco process seems like it's gotten pretty streamlined at this point
19:39:05 <red_trela> I'd rather have a fixed chair as otherwise things tend to fall under the table
19:39:19 <samkottler> red_trela: well we have to use trac and such to make sure that doesn't happen
19:39:23 <mattdm> I would be happy to do that for cloud wg, and I kinda started just acting that way,  but I am *also* trying to drive the larger fedora.next thing, so if someone else would like to be the driver here that would be cool
19:39:29 <samkottler> also, hacking rotating chairs significantly reduces bus factor
19:39:49 <samkottler> having**
19:39:57 <samkottler> autocomplete on my phone is not the best
19:40:06 <mattdm> hacking rotating chairs leads to suddenly falling on the floor
19:40:09 <number80> to diminish the rotation, we should keep an agenda of our meetings so anyone could easily chairs meeting
19:40:28 * samkottler is willing to be chair if we end up going with the single chair model
19:40:44 <frankieonuonga> rotating chairs sounds good..no one point of failure
19:41:08 <rbergeron> frankieonuonga: though conversely, every week someoen could be a point of failure :)
19:41:10 <frankieonuonga> just my $0.02
19:41:13 <red_trela> it's not like a single chair means others can't take over whenever necessary ;)
19:41:13 <mattdm> I can see advantages of both. let's do a vote for the single vs. rotating chair first
19:41:17 <number80> we lost a WG member :-
19:41:21 <mattdm> frankieonuonga $0.02 are valuable
19:41:22 <rbergeron> I like the idea of having someone drive for now - keep the train going and have some direction.
19:41:38 <rbergeron> usually people know when that naturally becomes ... a transition to rotations, I think.
19:42:12 <rbergeron> it doesn't have to be permanent, just ... have a driver for the moment, get everyone on the bus, so they know what the bus route looks like every week, tothe point that they could all drie it even without the bus driver around.
19:42:16 <samkottler> jzb: we need to get you a fedora freenode cloak :)
19:42:17 <rbergeron> if that analogy makes any sense. :)
19:42:34 <rbergeron> all drive it .. that is
19:42:40 <mattdm> proposal: one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving everything forward
19:42:55 <number80> any volunteers ?
19:43:00 <rbergeron> i think sam just did.
19:43:09 <mattdm> wait let's vote first on whether we want to do it at all :)
19:43:13 <jzb> apologies, I got bumped off
19:43:29 <mattdm> jzb proposal is:  one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving
19:43:35 <red_trela> +1
19:43:36 <geppetto> So … having only a single chair seems bad.
19:43:37 <samkottler> mattdm: +1
19:43:44 <number80> +1
19:43:47 <geppetto> From other meetings it's fairly common for 1 person to be off.
19:44:02 <rbergeron> mattdm: yes, do we want to add some sort of period to that?
19:44:05 <geppetto> So having at least 1 backup (say, Sam and Matt) seems better, to me.
19:44:17 <rbergeron> geppetto: yes, but usually ... people do point to someone as a backup
19:44:26 <samkottler> wouldn't that be a chair + vice chair?
19:44:47 <geppetto> Sure, if we want to call it that I'm fine with it.
19:44:53 <mattdm> chair and vice chair sounds fine. also okay with either term limits or "until person is very tired"
19:44:55 <rbergeron> it doesn't feel like this is such a huge group that we couldn't just get people to ... fill in by asking - and if we have to do it perpetually, i will just refrain from buying sam beer. for a full year. :)
19:45:08 <mattdm> +1 rbergeron
19:45:47 <number80> as long as the agenda is kept up to date, it's easy for anyone to step up
19:46:06 <mattdm> proposal 2: one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving; other people will step up as needed if chair is temporarily unavailable
19:46:15 <number80> +1
19:46:17 <samkottler> mattdm: +1
19:46:19 <mattdm> +1 to self
19:46:20 <frankieonuonga> +1
19:46:21 <red_trela> +1
19:46:32 <number80> quorum \o/
19:46:34 <rbergeron> +1
19:46:34 <jzb> +1
19:46:47 <mattdm> superquorum \o/ \o/ \o/
19:46:58 <mattdm> #agreed one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving; other
19:47:03 <mattdm> #undo
19:47:03 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x2b21d590>
19:47:34 <mattdm> #agreed one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving; other people will step up as needed if chair is temporarily unavailable (+7)
19:47:54 <mattdm> geppetto ftr are you okay with that?
19:48:20 <number80> let's tame the dragon called "membership"
19:48:29 <mattdm> number80 +1
19:49:06 <mattdm> I didn't get a general feeling for the overall opinions here....
19:49:18 <samkottler> I'd like the group to choose the next round of members
19:49:29 <samkottler> also, as part of that decision we need to figure out if term limits are something we want
19:49:31 <samkottler> I suspect they are
19:49:47 <rbergeron> i'm down for option b; work till you're unable, fill in naturally.
19:50:12 <frankieonuonga> i will go with rbergeron
19:50:24 <rbergeron> on a group of 10, people wil have to come and go naturally, and having a vote every time that happens is ... hard.
19:50:29 <mattdm> 9 :)
19:50:37 <mattdm> unless i'm really bad at counting
19:50:40 <number80> proposal: members of the cloud WG are coopted by the current members when a seat is available due to a leaving member
19:50:46 <geppetto> mattdm: yeh
19:50:47 <mattdm> coopted, eh?
19:50:49 <rbergeron> 2 years is a long time to expect people will be around in a role.
19:50:55 <rbergeron> mattdm: i may be really bad
19:51:06 <mattdm> :)
19:51:10 <number80> mattdm: co-opted?
19:51:20 <mattdm> taken over?
19:51:28 <jwb> appointed
19:51:36 <rbergeron> a-dopted
19:52:11 <samkottler> official language: jumped in
19:52:20 <mattdm> shoved in
19:52:21 <frankieonuonga> to be honest I think we are looking at this the wrong way…leaders are just there to serve the community .
19:52:51 <frankieonuonga> looking at it that way should give us a better way to guide us.
19:52:55 <number80> ok, you'll explain me later the subtility here, let's say appointed ;)
19:53:06 <number80> proposal: members of the cloud WG are appointed by the current members when a seat is available due to a leaving member
19:53:08 <mattdm> number80 :)
19:53:12 <samkottler> number80: +1
19:53:17 <number80> +1
19:53:18 <red_trela> appointed is a word that is much better understood by non-native speakers ;)
19:53:19 <frankieonuonga> +1
19:53:21 <red_trela> +1
19:53:32 <mattdm> frankieonuonga Okay, listening... do you have a proposal based on that?
19:53:49 <mattdm> but I see you are +1 to number80, so we'll start from there :)
19:53:54 <mattdm> number80 +1
19:53:58 <rbergeron> that sounds almost like option b, minus the "unanimous consent" option
19:54:12 <mattdm> oh yeah. i forgot about that.
19:54:25 <mattdm> i am suffering from too long of meetings
19:54:30 <samkottler> I think it's okay to leave it out for now
19:54:32 <mattdm> do we want to make that part of the rules?
19:54:37 <frankieonuonga> i am happy with this as a start..but that should be clear to the team from the word go..it also makes other community members feel welcome
19:54:46 <rbergeron> not really. FORGE AHEAD AS IS - i just didn't know if you had some reason for that wording in particular
19:54:48 <samkottler> although I'm not necessarily opposed to the unanimous part of the proposal
19:54:55 <number80> the same
19:55:01 <mattdm> rbergeron fpc does it that way.
19:55:08 <mattdm> and it seemed kind of nice to me.
19:55:27 * mattdm grew up with anarchist hippies who made decisions by consensus
19:55:42 <number80> ok, let's revote
19:55:53 <number80> proposal: Because continuity is important, Working Group members serve as long as they are able and willing. When a position on the group becomes available, that position will be filled by unanimous consent of the existing members
19:56:00 <orc_emac_> heh -- mattdm /me read that as antiChrist hippies
19:56:03 <mattdm> number80 +1
19:56:06 <number80> (i copy/paste option B)
19:56:06 <samkottler> number80: +1
19:56:08 <number80> +1
19:56:34 <rbergeron> +1
19:56:36 <frankieonuonga> +1
19:56:37 <red_trela> s/existing/remaining/ ?
19:56:49 <red_trela> +1 either way :)
19:57:17 <number80> jzb ?
19:57:29 <rbergeron> we never know if they will be existing or remaining, so .. existing covers all bases
19:57:32 <rbergeron> :)
19:57:39 <mattdm> red_trela you mean, does the outgoing person need to agree? i think the intent was that they're gone at that point, so no. i agree that remaining is a more clear wording
19:57:40 <geppetto> +1
19:58:01 <samkottler> rbergeron: there also not going to be existing members once they quit :)
19:58:05 <samkottler> they're**
19:58:07 <samkottler> words are hard
19:58:18 <red_trela> mattdm: I really just mean to be clearer but understood it the same way
19:58:19 <number80> #agreed Because continuity is important, Working Group members serve as long as they are able and willing. When a position on the group becomes available, that position will be filled by unanimous consent of the existing members (+7)
19:58:21 <rbergeron> well, they may resign or give notice :0
19:58:48 <samkottler> rbergeron: :D
19:58:52 <number80> one mythical beast down :)
19:59:09 <number80> next topic ?
19:59:23 <mattdm> i think there's probably some more in the governance...
19:59:33 <samkottler> do we want to talk about a rel-eng liaison to work with dgilmore?
19:59:42 <mattdm> I'll take all of this and make another draft
19:59:52 <samkottler> and the structure/appointment of that "liaisonship"?
20:00:14 <mattdm> samkottler yes, so that's currently part of the "role in fedora" and "communication" sections which we agreed to move up...
20:00:25 * frankieonuonga would like to volunteer for that
20:00:26 <mattdm> which means that if we want to make those things official they should get their own section
20:00:57 <samkottler> mattdm: gotcha, so we can flesh out the document more and go from there?
20:01:02 <mattdm> there are a lot of important teams in fedora... rel-eng, qa, ambassadors, docs, marketing, design, something-i'm-forgetting-and-probably-horribly-offending-people-over
20:01:15 <number80> more generally, fedora.next requires to expand the rel-eng team :(
20:01:33 <mattdm> number80 +1000000000000
20:01:34 * abadger1999 reads up to find out why fpc was mentioned earlier
20:01:47 <jwb> mattdm, we do not need +1000000000000 more rel-eng people.
20:01:50 <jwb> ;)
20:01:51 <mattdm> jwb lol
20:02:10 <number80> abadger1999: we're copying your membership policy ;)
20:02:13 <mattdm> okay, so it has been an hour.
20:02:19 <dgilmore> maybe +10
20:02:25 <samkottler> jwb: thing about how fast composes would be then!
20:02:26 <jwb> abadger1999, workstation might do the same
20:02:27 <number80> 2 is fine
20:02:45 <abadger1999> okay -- note that we don't do unanimous consent although we try.
20:02:46 <number80> i should stop binary jokes
20:03:06 <mattdm> how about I draft an update to the governance document and bring it back to the mailing list?
20:03:24 <number80> +1
20:03:24 <samkottler> +1
20:03:29 <frankieonuonga> sounds good
20:03:40 <mattdm> (not waiting for a full vote on that)
20:03:45 <red_trela> +1
20:03:47 <mattdm> #action mattdm to draft an update to the governance document and bring it back to the mailing list
20:04:11 <geppetto> +1
20:04:13 <mattdm> #topic PRD Framework
20:04:16 <number80> yeah, we still have to discuss the PRD
20:04:17 <mattdm> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_PRD
20:04:21 <jzb> mattdm: so what things do you want/need help with immediately?
20:04:29 <jzb> mattdm: so you don't wind up being tasked with all the things.
20:04:31 <abadger1999> (It's basically, collect volunteers.  FPC discusses in private.  We try to select the volunteer or  volunteers that most of us agree on being the most suitable and least of us have reservations about)
20:04:47 <number80> mattdm: you may skip the #link, meetbot recognizes links at the beginning of a sentence ;)
20:04:57 <rbergeron> habits. they die hard
20:05:20 <mattdm> jzb this next huge thing about the prd i've actually been avoiding. so it only _looks_ like i'm doing all the things when really i'm not doing the most important part
20:05:30 <rbergeron> I need to finish ... providing a bit of context here, but i suspect most of it is reasonably easy to figure out :)
20:05:37 * mattdm skimmed it
20:05:54 <rbergeron> I do want to know if we want to sae a version as a template vs. one that is ... the thing we work on, or just ... keep hacking away at it as we fill things out?
20:05:57 * samkottler can help with the PRD as a well
20:06:08 <samkottler> someone just knocked on my door, brb
20:06:27 <frankieonuonga> I do not have experience in this but would like to assist to get it
20:06:34 <red_trela> "save a version" => history of the wiki page
20:06:36 <number80> rbergeron: are user profiles in the PRD, the same as personas ?
20:06:50 <mattdm> I think there's (at least one) really big question about direction that we will need to answer before we can actually fill out the substance
20:06:53 <rbergeron> number80: yes, ish -
20:07:32 <rbergeron> i mean we can do it as detailed as we want to r get what seems reasonable and move onwards -
20:07:49 <rbergeron> since we lack the "marketing" portion of this process we're kind of winging it outside the normal processes anyway :0
20:08:09 <number80> first our targeted users, then define the products
20:08:26 <jzb> rbergeron: what would you like to see in the marketing portion that we might be able to do?
20:08:34 <number80> are some members here going to AWS reInvent and/or openstack summit ?
20:08:38 <jzb> number80: yo
20:08:46 <number80> :)
20:09:03 <mattdm> mrunge is at the openstack summit
20:09:12 <rbergeron> figuring out user profiles/personas and/or use cases, really.
20:09:30 <number80> these events are good places to survey our targeted users
20:09:45 <jzb> rbergeron: I will be doing that at AWS and to some extent LISA
20:09:49 <rbergeron> the odd thing is that we already have ... something. so it's hard to say if we want to re-decribe every detail from scratch, or ... not
20:10:23 <mattdm> we need to decide if we want to make one persona or set of persona _really happy_, or, try to cover them all. or to what degree.
20:10:33 <dgilmore> we could do 20 preconfigured images easily
20:10:44 <frankieonuonga> I can offer statistics based on what users use it for here.
20:10:47 <rbergeron> mattdm: so part of how this would normally work
20:10:49 <jzb> mattdm: I want to make one or three personas very happy
20:10:53 * rbergeron takes even her daddy shadowman red fedora off
20:10:54 <dgilmore> could look at dropping 32 bit x86
20:10:59 <frankieonuonga> it might be worth mentioning i work for a local cloud compute company
20:11:12 <rbergeron> a normal company, or project, would scope out the universe, and make some decisoins based on "what's required" vs. "resources"
20:11:12 <dgilmore> and how to integrate arm into cloud
20:11:22 <mattdm> dgilmore *nod*
20:11:39 <rbergeron> and if you can't even do those things - then you have to admit you can't do it and do it well
20:12:06 <samkottler> dgilmore: the only time I can think of useful cases of 32 bit x86 for cloud stuff is on extrememly memory constrained machines
20:12:09 <number80> i kinda agree with jzb (here and what he said on his last email about the PRD)
20:12:17 <samkottler> memory usage is much lower for say...python apps
20:12:20 <dgilmore> i saw http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2013-October/000566.html fly by today
20:12:41 <jzb> number80: that we should be targeting instances, not platform for IaaS?
20:12:53 <rbergeron> so i woul dsay - scope out even the far reaching things - at least that way we do still have an idea of what to not design ourselves *out of* in teh future
20:12:54 <dgilmore> samkottler: right, may be worth dropping
20:13:02 <samkottler> dgilmore: heh, yeah I agree
20:13:22 * mattdm is totally down with dropping 32-bit. but wants to read what robyn is saying. but has short attention span.
20:13:23 <jzb> samkottler: do we know what folks on AWS tend to pick?
20:13:23 <number80> dgilmore: arm is definitively worth mentionning (my former boss is actually building an android cloud in his new company)
20:13:41 <samkottler> jzb: no AFAIK, but maybe mattdm has that info from AWS marketplace
20:13:43 <rbergeron> jzb: I can do some, um, "user research" on that
20:13:49 <rbergeron> samkottler: we don't have aws marketplace
20:13:59 <samkottler> rbergeron: ah, well nvm then
20:14:09 <jzb> I've also asked scalr folks for info, not sure when that will drop
20:14:11 <mattdm> this is a sad story
20:14:26 <number80> jzb: though we should collaborate with Server WG about IaaS, i think that it belongs to them if i'm not mistaken
20:14:37 <rbergeron> jzb: i can probably wheedle someone we may know who may used to be an fpl who can usually provide vague clues :)
20:14:41 <jzb> rbergeron: that would be lovely
20:14:49 <rbergeron> though sebastian also does have excellent data points that i have seen
20:14:57 * number80 wish he could move from SaaS to IaaS at $DAYJOB
20:15:25 * rbergeron notes that in teh prd she did allude to cross-cooordinating with server wg on some things, speciically iaas-ish things
20:15:35 <number80> +1
20:15:35 <mattdm> +1 to cross-coordinating
20:15:53 <mattdm> rbergeron so, scope out broadly, and then may decide to narrow down?
20:15:57 <jzb> so, IMHO, anything we do should imply cross-coordinating :-)
20:16:05 <rbergeron> anyway: so i don't really care if people want to do personas, use cases, user profiles, or ... whatever they want, and we'll re-write a bit as we figure out what makes the most sense in that section.
20:16:06 <jzb> but there's what we focus on and what we don't.
20:16:39 <rbergeron> i assumed we are not focusing on the OS that an IaaS would run on, just that we would have images/guests/vms/etc. that would run well on those.
20:16:53 <rbergeron> And that other requirements we have outside the scope are also important, but not product requirements.
20:17:15 <rbergeron> ie: have to be able to make images is a no-brainer, but isn't a requirement for an image/guest/vm to actually function and do things for someone.
20:17:37 <mattdm> wait, it isn't?
20:17:47 <rbergeron> again: i think we don't even know how big the scope is that we might have to focus in on - so having the lay of the land helps us to pick and choose once we know, rather than deciding now
20:17:57 <mattdm> okay, I can get behind that.
20:18:15 <rbergeron> mattdm: the "product" is officially "the image / etc. we deliver"
20:18:29 <number80> to determine the scope, we need to know which users we target
20:18:33 <rbergeron> it's not required for it to actually *function*
20:19:07 <rbergeron> it's just part of making the fedora cloud experience better as a whole, that's why it's a non-functional requirement
20:19:10 <rbergeron> (imo)
20:19:17 <mattdm> hmmm.
20:19:28 <rbergeron> you can argue over whether or not it will exist without a way to make them but there are a million ways, not all open source
20:19:51 <dgilmore> rbergeron: things like a mysql, lamp, postgres etc images
20:19:54 <rbergeron> qwe can piece together things from koji and not also make a way to provide the methodology to users
20:20:15 <dgilmore> ready to run for different tasks?
20:20:44 <mattdm> dgilmore eg 'appliance marketplace'
20:20:46 <rbergeron> dgilmore: or you can take heat templates and provision them, or do that in openshift, or puppetize them,...
20:20:50 <mattdm> that's definitely one possible direction
20:20:57 <jzb> I think a big part of the requirements are going to be docs showing users/developers how to get from bare AMI / image to what they want to use in development/production
20:21:00 <dgilmore> i think having a way for users to build custom images is needed
20:21:08 <rbergeron> that "400 ways to do the same thing" is sort of the large things people needle me about constantly
20:21:09 <samkottler> whoa, this just grew a lot in scope, can we table this for further discussion since we're running up on 1.5 hours here?
20:21:10 <jzb> so not just the technical end, but also the "here's how to use this"
20:21:11 <rbergeron> WHAT SHOULD WE DO...
20:21:18 <dgilmore> mattdm: right
20:21:21 <rbergeron> just not prevent anyone from doing what they want to do, IMO :)
20:21:24 <rbergeron> samkottler: agreed :)
20:21:39 <dgilmore> different ways to get the same result
20:21:44 <samkottler> does someone want to start the ZOMG WHAT ARE WE BUILDING?! thread on the mailing list?
20:21:49 <rbergeron> dgilmore: yes, it is needed, but it's not required for the "image itself to actually run"
20:21:54 <mattdm> okay, so: do we have anything actional right now?
20:21:55 <jzb> samkottler: I will if I can use that subject
20:22:02 <rbergeron> hence - functional vs. non-functional - i will go and write that information out more clearly in the doc.
20:22:05 <mattdm> jzb do it!
20:22:11 <red_trela> +1 for jzb doing that :)
20:22:12 <rbergeron> and someone can action me on that if they want.
20:22:15 <samkottler> jzb: go for it
20:22:18 <rbergeron> i jsut have the whole document actioned in my head atm.
20:22:24 <samkottler> jzb: I grant you usage on my copyrighted crazy
20:22:30 <number80> my attention is starting to fade, remember to timebox meetings :)
20:22:37 <mattdm> yeah. :)
20:22:45 <jzb> rbergeron: I will be helping with the [P|M]RD, don't expect you to do that alone.
20:22:45 <frankieonuonga> we need to wrap up guys
20:22:49 <frankieonuonga> please
20:23:07 <samkottler> +1
20:23:08 <mattdm> yeah I'm losing even my ability to chair the meeting effectivecly
20:23:12 <rbergeron> jzb: yes, i just mean that i need to fill in ... just basic definition stuff, so people know sort of the basic intent of sections
20:23:15 <rbergeron> anyway
20:23:21 <rbergeron> move along? i don't know that we have anything to decide here.
20:23:26 <samkottler> adjourn adjourn adjourn
20:23:40 <mattdm> +1 adjourn
20:23:44 <frankieonuonga> +1
20:23:44 <red_trela> +1
20:23:50 <geppetto> +1
20:23:50 <mattdm> samkottler do you want to chair the next meeting? :)
20:23:55 <number80> +1
20:24:07 <jzb> +1
20:24:10 <samkottler> mattdm: I'll be on a plane to miami beach
20:24:17 <rbergeron> lulz
20:24:30 <mattdm> samkottler hmmm. okay then :)
20:24:30 <red_trela> planes in the US do have wifi, don't they? ;)
20:24:35 <number80> samkottler: lucky you, i wish i stayed there this summer :o)
20:24:40 <rbergeron> not always :\
20:24:41 <mattdm> #endmeeting