17:03:59 <cdub> #startmeeting
17:03:59 <odl_meetbot> Meeting started Thu Apr  3 17:03:59 2014 UTC.  The chair is cdub. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:03:59 <odl_meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:04:12 <tbachman> start the record?
17:04:15 <chrisprice___> #info Chris Price joined the meeting
17:04:25 <cdub> #topic #info in
17:04:29 <edwarnicke___> #info Ed Warnicke
17:04:32 <dmm> #info dmm
17:04:32 <cdub> #info Chris Wright here
17:04:40 <chrisprice___> #info Chris rice
17:05:08 <colindixon> rollcall?
17:05:34 <colindixon> #info Colin Dixon representing IBM on behalf of Vijoy
17:05:37 <cdub> colindixon: we are #info'ing in
17:06:22 <colindixon> cdub: thanks, I figured
17:06:33 <cdub> #info tbachman asks about recording, dmm reminds that we are using meetbot for capturing minutes instead of call recording
17:06:45 <dmm> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:Main#Meeting_Agenda
17:07:23 <cdub> #info dmm congrats group on INTEROP Best in SDN and Best in Show
17:07:39 <colindixon> w00t
17:09:42 <cdub> #topic agenda bashing
17:10:06 <cdub> #info discussing Summit date (Hyatt in Sept) and actual Helium release process
17:10:12 <cdub> #info this is on the agenda for today's call
17:11:48 <cdub> #info colindixon says we agreed to book Hyatt but didn't agree to any specific release plan
17:12:06 <cdub> colindixon: yes...that's what i believe we voted on
17:12:14 <cdub> and i belive that's what dmm said
17:12:20 <colindixon> cdub: I agree
17:12:25 <colindixon> I just wanted to get it out there clearly
17:12:27 <phrobb> #info edwarnicke___ agrees with colindixon's understanding
17:12:31 <cdub> we're just confused here...and straigtening out
17:12:41 * colindixon does the understanding dance
17:12:58 <cdub> #info for clarity...Yes...we agreed to venue, not specific release plan
17:13:12 <colindixon> #topic board meeting readout
17:13:18 <cdub> #topic board meeting
17:13:21 <colindixon> (oh, that failed since I'm not chair)
17:13:55 <cdub> #chair colindixon
17:13:55 <odl_meetbot> Current chairs: cdub colindixon
17:14:01 <phrobb> cdub would you like to #chair me and colindixon to help out?
17:14:11 <phrobb> there we go
17:14:16 <cdub> #chair phrobb
17:14:16 <odl_meetbot> Current chairs: cdub colindixon phrobb
17:14:39 <cdub> #info board agrees to 60day delay for TSC election to strighten out issues
17:15:06 <colindixon> #info this means that we will need to agree on what we want to take to them earlier than that to give them time to consider them
17:15:39 <cdub> #info SF Hyatt booked Sep30-Oct1, hopefully w/ Helium just released, perhaps final sprint for Helium
17:16:01 <cdub> #info (booked for design summit)
17:16:05 <cdub> #topic creation reviews
17:16:30 <Madhu> #info https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OpenDaylight_Toolkit
17:16:49 <cdub> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:OpenDaylight_Toolkit
17:17:14 <cdub> #info OpenDaylight Toolkit creation review
17:18:11 <cdub> #info actively under development, current repo in github
17:18:42 <cdub> #link https://github.com/opendaylight-toolkit/opendaylight-toolkit
17:19:42 <cdub> #info had really good demo 2wks ago
17:20:00 <phrobb> #info general comments by TSC are this project is awesome
17:20:27 <cdub> #info regXboi noted that archetypes could have long term architectural implications (i.e. this is how we do dev for internal projects)
17:20:56 <cdub> #info edwarnicke___ notes archetypes are awesome, but have real limitations, and unlikely to be way to build internal services because of those limitations
17:21:09 <phrobb> #info also noted that archetypes have limits, but they are tremendously helpful for many types of apps
17:21:31 <cdub> #info dmm notes these concerns are largely theoretical and benefits outweigh risks
17:21:37 <tbachman> can someone info that ;)?
17:21:49 <cdub> tbachman: go for it
17:21:50 <tbachman> (jk colindixon ;)
17:21:51 <colindixon> #info regXboi notes that he did not want to re-raise these issues and so the topic is largely tabled
17:22:32 <edwarnicke___> #info colindixon and edwarnicke___ agree to share generalized blame.
17:23:22 <cdub> #info kentwatsen expresses concern...lots of projects already, does this make it easier to make more projects and therefore dillute current focus?
17:24:01 <colindixon> just for the record, I am hugely in favor of this project, I just wanted to make sure we didn't institutionally rewrite history to make it universally accepted
17:24:07 <cdub> #info clarify...this toolkit is to help newcomers to get started and build apps, not to create more ODL projects
17:25:47 <cdub> #info OpenDaylight Toolkit vote is unanimous
17:25:59 <cdub> #agree OpenDaylight Toolkit is incubated project
17:26:13 <colindixon> congrats!
17:26:22 * edwarnicke___ excited! :)
17:26:42 <cdub> #info and there is much rejoicing
17:26:50 <tbachman> lol
17:26:54 <cdub> ;)
17:27:08 <cdub> #info PCMM project review
17:27:39 <colindixon> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:PacketCablePCMM
17:27:54 <dmm> thnx colin
17:27:55 <cdub> colindixon: thanks, was looking for it
17:28:37 <colindixon> dmm: I think you have a lot of background noise
17:29:06 <cdub> do we have these slides online?
17:29:06 <phrobb> welcome kwatsen
17:29:17 <cdub> kwatsen: hey, welcome!
17:29:29 <dmm> cdub: I have 10 minutes; I'll let you know here when I have to bail; if its before we have a chance to vote on PCMM please take a vote
17:29:43 <cdub> dmm: ok, thanks
17:29:49 <dmm> then move on to Stable release schedule/mechanics
17:29:50 <dmm> Helium Release Schedule (Ed, ChrisW)
17:29:50 <dmm> Quality based release plan for Helium (dmm, Madhu)
17:29:50 <dmm> Automated release readout
17:29:56 <dmm> ok?
17:30:07 <cdub> yeah, sounds good
17:30:11 <Madhu> sorry guys. i have to run as well.
17:30:23 <colindixon> are these slides online?
17:30:24 <phrobb> kwatsen, protocol is that TSC members do a "#info" followed by their nic so there is a record of TSC members present at the meeting
17:30:26 <dmm> ok, thnx Madhu
17:30:40 <cdub> ok, so Helium kwality has no leaders ;)
17:30:55 <dmm> :-)
17:31:10 <colindixon> #info Thomas Kee presents on PCMM---slides will hopefully be posted later if they aren't already
17:31:13 <Madhu> cdub: maybe thats because of the spell-check error ;)
17:31:26 <Madhu> quality -> quality i mean. lol
17:31:41 <Madhu> kuality.... my spell check works.
17:32:01 <dmm> can somone email me the url with the minutes when we're done?
17:32:12 <colindixon> dmm: sure
17:32:15 <dmm> thnc
17:32:17 <dmm> x
17:32:26 <cdub> kwality...kinda specific speeling error
17:34:05 <cdub> #link https://github.com/xsited/packetcable  github PCMM work underway
17:35:25 <dmm> ok cdub, you have the conn
17:35:30 <cdub> #info PCMM, why OpenDaylight: SAL!
17:35:38 <colindixon> cdub is fast
17:35:40 <cdub> dmm: alright, good luck w/ your preso
17:35:44 <dmm> thnx
17:37:31 <cdub> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:PacketCablePCMM#Work_Flow_Example reviewing work flow and how ODL is updated w/ PCMM project
17:43:08 <cdub> #info PCMM project goals: finish sb PCMM driver, NB: CMTS provisioning, traffic profile, flow programmer de-augmentation/augmentation
17:43:22 <cdub> #info stay to release plan (aiming at finishing above in June)
17:43:32 <cdub> #info give this work to community
17:44:02 <cdub> #info AD-SAL vs MD-SAL?
17:44:19 <cdub> #info flow ids and gate ids mapping
17:44:37 <cdub> #info include IPv6
17:44:49 <colindixon> #info how to remove functionality from models rather than add
17:45:02 <cdub> #info deal w/ lack of l2
17:45:36 <cdub> #info open floor for questions...
17:46:25 <cdub> #info colindixon great showcase for SAL, and let's learn from that...great end-to-end workflow...
17:47:12 <cdub> #info dlenrow would like to see how we can tie policy group in here
17:48:09 <kwatsen> #info kwatsen
17:48:12 <colindixon> also, can we add the meeting here: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Weekly_Project_Meeting_List
17:48:53 <colindixon> I think it was Wed at 11a, but I don't know time zone
17:48:54 <cdub> #info LuisGomez curious if there is same QoS type enforcement capability w/out openflow
17:49:31 <cdub> #info some available in the past, but kind of died off, this is opportunity to revitalize
17:50:21 <cdub> #info edwarnicke___ asks: openflow is packet-in, cops for flow programming?
17:50:35 <cdub> #info yes, although some initial PoC was pure openflow
17:51:16 <cdub> #info netconf definition for full appliance config coming, and in short term use snmp
17:52:13 <cdub> #info PCMM project vote
17:52:25 <regXboi> the negative silence is stunning
17:52:28 <colindixon> #agreed PCMM is incubation
17:52:28 <cdub> #agree PacketCablePCMM accepted as incuabtion project
17:52:30 * edwarnicke___ smiles :)
17:53:06 <cdub> incubation even
17:53:57 <cdub> #topic System Integration and Testing update
17:54:26 <cdub> #info sent mail w/ details for performance meetings (not perfect time, but will start w/ that)
17:56:00 <phrobb> #topic Stable release schedule/mechanics
17:56:19 <cdub> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/CrossProject:Stable_Release
17:57:25 <phrobb> #info cdub calls attention to sections 2 through 4 for TSC discussion
17:58:02 <colindixon> #info first, is having a branch for each project that tracks it's stable releases
17:58:44 <phrobb> #info cdub proposes a consistent name for Stable Branches across projects
18:00:55 <phrobb> #info rough consensus gained for naming convention noted on wiki
18:01:09 <phrobb> gotta customer.. colindixon please cover
18:01:13 <colindixon> #agreed the stable branch naming convention will stand as described in the document (namely stable/<release-name-in-lowercase>)
18:01:25 <edwarnicke___> #info agreed consensus was branch name of stable/hydrogen (lower case)
18:01:36 <colindixon> phrobb: done
18:01:47 <edwarnicke___> #link https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/admin/projects/controller,branches controller has correcte to stable/hydrogen from stable/Hydrogen
18:03:46 <cdub> #info do we simply cut what we have now?
18:04:01 <cdub> #info regXboi says emphatically "No!"
18:04:03 <colindixon> #info artivact version numbers with a concrete suggestion of <major>.<minor>.<bugfix>-N where the dotted triple is the last release, i.e., hydrogen, and N represents the current stable release under that
18:05:02 <phrobb> #info regXboi notes that without close examination, we may add feature and/or api changes to the stable branch
18:06:25 <colindixon> #info colindixon asks about using a dotted triple with a dash-number on the other end
18:07:03 <colindixon> #info cdub says that dotted triples with a -N (where N is a number) on the end seems to actually have advantages, sorts properly, etc.
18:08:21 <phrobb> #info now discussing the Stable Patch Criteria section of the wiki page
18:09:23 <colindixon> #info we agree there's rough consensus on the version numbers barring somebody telling us it breaks maven in a way we haven'c considered
18:10:58 <colindixon> #info cdub wants to have good criteria and guidelines to decide what patches get moved into stable releases
18:11:31 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke___ is fine with that, but cautions to keep it as guidelines which we can use to shame people rather than strict laws passed and enforced by the TSC
18:11:47 <phrobb> #info question:  are there missing criteria or any radical objections to this criteria presented?
18:12:18 <colindixon> #info kwatsen asks if we should change the last bullet to say you can't add new APIs or add new APIs
18:12:36 <colindixon> #info or change existing APIs I mean
18:13:35 <edwarnicke___> colindixon: I did not use the word shame.  I prefer 'induce productive discussion' ;)
18:14:32 <colindixon> edwarnicke___: noted
18:16:05 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke___ wants to note that "induce productive discussion" would be a better way to phrase "shame people" when it comes to using these guidelines
18:18:20 <LuisGomez> this must be basic for most but not for me: will it be an instruction on how to easily port an existing patch from master to stable branch?
18:19:56 <phrobb> #info LuisGomez and regXboi note that having a link on mechanics of cherrypicking patches would be helpful
18:20:15 <phrobb> #action regXboi to document cherrypicking
18:20:53 <phrobb> #info, general consensus gained on stable patch criteria
18:21:10 <phrobb> #info now discussing Stable Release Criteria
18:21:24 <colindixon> thanks for picking up again phrobb
18:21:48 <abhijitkumbhare> phrobb: should that be a topic change - rather than info?
18:22:00 <phrobb> sure colindixon, i disappear briefly when people come up to the booth
18:22:06 <colindixon> abhijitkumbhare: we haven't been doing it
18:22:13 <abhijitkumbhare> OK
18:22:16 <phrobb> the topic is this wikipage, so I was just #info-ing the sections
18:22:25 <colindixon> exactly
18:22:39 <abhijitkumbhare> ok
18:27:03 <phrobb> #info cdub asks will we get to releasing individual projects?  We are not ready to do that currently as we have things bundled
18:27:44 <cdub> heh, the integrators dillema
18:27:51 <phrobb> #regXboi requests that all projects stay synced on the stable branch.  If not, those taking the code to add to their own solutions gets very difficult
18:28:16 <colindixon> #info regXboi requests that all projects stay synced on the stable branch.  If not, those taking the code to add to their own solutions gets very difficult
18:28:31 <phrobb> #info cdub coins a new term the Integrator's dillema
18:32:04 <cdub> #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhywWQdJrMqedGZzREV0ZUtCSHkyOGl2a1dmWTJ4Y0E&usp=sharing#gid=0 task
18:32:37 <phrobb> #info above link is for tracking what needs to be done
18:33:32 <phrobb> #info regXboi notes he will be documenting the gerrit cherrypick process
18:33:35 <cdub> phrobb: thanks, i hit enter too soon
18:33:53 <phrobb> cdub:  anytime
18:34:02 <kwatsen> there a two more instances of "Stable Release" within the "Stable Patch Criteria " section - should be changed also?
18:34:10 <colindixon> +1 to Ed's thanks to regXboi for all of his work about stable releases, cherrypicking issues, and everything else
18:37:35 <cdub> kwatsen: thank you!  i updated
18:38:07 <phrobb> #info discussion ensues on how to cherrypick and document what bugs/patches have been put on stable branch
18:41:44 <colindixon> #info discussion about how to make developers' lives easier when a bug fix may not cherry pick as cleanly as would be liked
18:42:32 <phrobb> #info need to add the workflow to the wiki
18:42:58 <phrobb> #action cdub to work with leena on documenting workflow on the wiki
18:43:08 <cdub> #action lr_ will update wiki w/ workflow
18:43:32 <phrobb> thanks cdub, didn't know the right nic
18:44:02 <cdub> np
18:44:14 <cdub> heh, -1/2...love that
18:45:27 <cdub> regXboi volunteers to run 3 meetgins
18:45:30 * cdub ducks
18:45:48 * regXboi volunteers to run away :)
18:47:28 <colindixon> #info we need a primary contact for stable releases for each project, projects please put this up on the sheet (and also the wiki?)
18:47:34 <cdub> #topic Helium Release Schedule
18:47:35 <phrobb> #topic Helium Release Schedule
18:48:09 <cdub> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Simultaneous_Release:Helium_Release_Plan
18:50:49 <cdub> #info compress above to
18:51:01 <cdub> #info M0 - 4/07
18:51:08 <cdub> #info M1 - 5/01
18:51:20 <cdub> #info rest is the same as wiki
18:53:31 <colindixon> #info the result of this would be that projects must submit a proposal in by 4/17 in order to be able to join the Helium release
18:54:19 <colindixon> #info note that those changes (for M0 and M1) are now made on the wiki page
18:55:58 <colindixon> #info edwarnicke___ points out that there are people who are outsiders who may not be well-versed in the release process and so are going to be caught unawares by the fact that they will need to be moving quickly soon
18:56:17 <colindixon> #info cdub is less concerned about this
19:00:36 <cdub> colindixon: we already have that in the draft doc
19:01:00 <colindixon> #info colindixon asks if this can be solve pretty easily by offering leniency for new projects that don't have people depending on them
19:01:09 <cdub> "Please note that the TSC reserves the right to allow projects to enter the Simultaneous Release for a reasonable period of time after the M1 date."
19:01:12 <colindixon> #info cdub points out that this is already in the draft doc
19:04:40 <colindixon> #info chrisprice___ points out that we do need *a* time and that there will always be projects on the cusp of those dates, so moving things around won't likely help too much
19:07:24 <phrobb> #info discussion continue as how best to come to consensus on release planning and dates
19:09:24 <colindixon> phrobb: does it it ever :p
19:09:35 <phrobb> #info kwatsen notes that this is a second release and new projects should be paying attention.  Also, on hitting a Sept. date, we may need set the feature set to match the timeframe needed
19:11:18 <phrobb> #cdub takes a poll of the current skeleton plan and TSC members comfort with it
19:12:45 <regXboi> hey all - I have a call at the bottom of the hour, so I gotta run
19:13:26 <cdub> #info Chris Wright is OK w/ plan as is
19:13:46 <colindixon> #info colindixon is generally OK with the plan as is (noting exceptions for new projects and the fact that the major deadlines are still well in the future)
19:14:00 <tbachman> bueller?
19:14:08 <kwatsen> #info 0 (abstain), but generally link the plan currently listed on wiki
19:14:15 <chrisprice___> #info Ok with the plan as it stands
19:14:15 <kwatsen> s/link/like/
19:14:59 <tbachman> edwarnicke___: ?
19:15:19 <edwarnicke___> #info Ed Warnicke is concerned that a) The current plan would have a date in the past by the time the TSC could actually vote on it.  b)  We actually have had no discussion of the actual content of the plan, or improvements over Hydrogen we would like to see in the plan... we seem to only be voting on end dates.  c)  There is insufficient space in the plan
19:15:19 <edwarnicke___> to allow access to the process by new/non-insider participants.  d)  We have barely started hearing from the community on the plan.
19:22:17 <abhijitkumbhare> Clarifying my suggestion: the suggestion is that we have a quality focus Helium release with performance optimizations (data store changes, thread model changes, stats mgr optimizations, etc.), stability issues, in June (or worst case July) - no real new features. This should be doable & will leave an adequate buffer for the Sept summit. Have the full featured Lithium release in December (may be even target November to keep a buffer
19:22:18 <abhijitkumbhare> before the Jan summit). That way we are predictable and time based.
19:23:35 <tbachman> approaching 25 minutes over
19:24:01 <cdub> tbachman: dude, what's your point? ;)
19:24:07 <tbachman> lol
19:24:16 <tbachman> #info tbachman has no point
19:24:21 <cdub> haha
19:24:50 <tbachman> sorry -- couldn't resist moment of infamy
19:26:02 <phrobb> #action edwarnicke___ to propose an alternate time schedule for Helium Release
19:29:55 <phrobb> #info colindixon proposes to set M0 date as 4/10 so that the TSC must have a plan at the end of next week's TSC meeting
19:31:02 <colindixon> I am going to have to drop…
19:32:12 <phrobb> #agreed TSC will decide on the Release schedule for Helium at next week's meeting
19:32:49 <phrobb> #action cdub to send an email to explain this decision to TSC and Discuss list so everyone in the community knows
19:33:27 <phrobb> #endmeeting