Thanks everyone who was able to make it to the meeting today! For those who weren't
able to make it, here are few important links:
Here's a summary of the meeting (link to the HTML and text versions above):
#fedora-meeting-1: cloud WG weekly meeting
Meeting started by samkottler at 17:01:14 UTC. The full logs are
* rollcall (samkottler, 17:02:05)
* PRD (samkottler, 17:06:33)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas
* ACTION: samkottler to start thread to desktop WG about desktop
virtualization (samkottler, 17:24:35)
* open floor (samkottler, 17:41:33)
Meeting ended at 17:43:02 UTC.
* samkottler to start thread to desktop WG about desktop virtualization
Action Items, by person
* samkottler to start thread to desktop WG about desktop
People Present (lines said)
* samkottler (41)
* mattdm (40)
* jzb (29)
* frankieonuonga (19)
* sgallagh (5)
* rbergeron (5)
* zodbot (4)
* geppetto (2)
* number80 (0)
17:01:14 <samkottler> #startmeeting cloud WG weekly meeting
17:01:14 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec 11 17:01:14 2013 UTC. The chair is
samkottler. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
17:01:14 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:43 <samkottler> #chair mattdm rbergeron number80 jzb
17:01:43 <zodbot> Current chairs: jzb mattdm number80 rbergeron samkottler
17:02:05 <samkottler> #topic rollcall
17:02:20 * samkottler is here :-)
17:02:32 * jzb is here
17:02:49 * geppetto is here
17:03:13 <samkottler> #chair geppetto
17:03:13 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto jzb mattdm number80 rbergeron samkottler
17:04:17 <samkottler> looks like we don't have quorum this week?
17:04:44 <mattdm> Okay, so maybe just talk about PRD and not vote on anything?
17:04:58 <jzb> samkottler: how many do we need for quorum?
17:05:08 <samkottler> jzb: 5
17:05:08 <jzb> I could vote twice...
17:05:43 * rbergeron is here and is also trying to do something with someone in sweden
simultaneously so i may be distractomundo
17:05:43 <jzb> mattdm: +1
17:06:02 <rbergeron> but if you scream i'll say I'M HERE I'M HERE , no
free time for u today!
17:06:05 <geppetto> rbergeron: That probably sounds more awesome than it is :)
17:06:33 <samkottler> #topic PRD
17:06:40 <samkottler> sooo the PRD...
17:06:44 <mattdm> I started one PRD related thread on the mailing list, about use
17:06:49 <mattdm> that seemed productive. :)
17:07:30 <mattdm> I think maybe that's the next approach -- to take some of the
sections and talk about them in chunks like that on the list.
17:07:40 <samkottler> I think we should decide if we want specific use cases for
each private & public cloud
17:07:40 <mattdm> since we can't get everyone together on irc very easily
17:07:47 <samkottler> I'm leaning pretty heavily toward "no"
17:08:01 <mattdm> samkottler right that was the specific thing :)
17:08:22 <jzb> mattdm: I tried that with the section I worked on...
17:08:28 <jzb> got a little feedback.
17:08:39 <jzb> still wondering what "major themes" should be, though.
17:09:00 <samkottler> the server WG put this together
17:09:01 <samkottler> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas
17:09:05 <mattdm> My thought there is that -- with the *possible* exception of
market-dominating EC2 -- the actual cloud tech isn't actually the use case itself.
17:09:12 <samkottler> and
17:10:45 <samkottler> mattdm: yeah exactly
17:10:50 <mattdm> rbergeron -- hey what does major themese mean?
17:11:17 <samkottler> the use cases are 'what are the different reasons people
care about fedora in the cloud space'
17:11:24 <samkottler> and who are the people
17:11:28 <mattdm> samkottler So I'm going to replace that section with something
like what I posted to the list.
17:11:35 <samkottler> mattdm: +1
17:11:48 <mattdm> and we can work on refining it from there.
17:12:22 <mattdm> mrunge had a bunch of other ones....
17:12:25 <rbergeron> mattdm: think of it as groupings of major ... stories or
17:12:28 <rbergeron> if that makes sense?
17:12:34 <rbergeron> feel free to ... do ... whatever
17:12:45 <mattdm> rbergeron ah, okay, yeah, that definitely makes sense.
17:13:58 <jzb> rbergeron: gotcha. OK
17:14:02 <mattdm> mrunge's use cases make me go back to an earlier thing I
talked about -- cloud image as a cloud guest vs. other fedora products running in the
17:14:47 <mattdm> for example, an old school mail server seems like it probably
really fits best in the server wg even if it happens to be hosted in a cloud environment.
17:15:01 <samkottler> agreed
17:15:19 <mattdm> a mail server as part of some larger cloud application (the part
that sends out notiications or subscriptions or something) might fit in
17:15:24 <samkottler> and when we talked with sgallagh there was rough agreement
that we'd be responsible for the cloud specific stuff and they'd control the rest
17:15:37 <mattdm> I'll respond on the list with these thoughts.
17:15:46 <jzb> mattdm: +1
17:16:03 <jzb> mattdm: I don't really see many people running just a mail server
in the cloud as a stand-alone
17:16:30 <mattdm> jzb especially since IP space for all public clouds is a spam
17:16:33 <jzb> (though, a Fedora instance that can be fired up as a plug and play
mail server might be a nice thing to have these days with the concerns about the
17:16:49 <jzb> (setting up a mail server is still way more difficult than it should
17:16:54 <jzb> mattdm: indeed.
17:17:05 <sgallagh> jzb: For the record, that's something we're exploring as
a "role" for the Fedora Server
17:17:13 <jzb> sgallagh: explore faster! :-)
17:17:16 <mattdm> the cloud desktop use case is similar -- I think it's
interesting, but also very, very different from the rest of our focus.
17:17:27 <jzb> sgallagh: it's one of my holiday projects
17:17:36 <sgallagh> jzb: Please collaborate with us, then!
17:17:52 <sgallagh> We're planning to focus on two or three roles at first.
17:17:58 <mattdm> I talked to someone at LISA who runs infrastructure for a
medium/large law firm and they use fedora on the desktop in exactly this way
17:18:03 <jzb> sgallagh: I'll see what I can do.
17:18:07 <sgallagh> If we have someone willing to get their hands dirty for a mail
server, that would go a long way
17:19:04 * sgallagh returns to lurking
17:19:54 <mattdm> But I think the hosted desktop use case is more something for the
desktop WG -- or possibly a different SIG of its own
17:20:39 <frankieonuonga> hi folks...sorry i am late
17:21:10 <samkottler> mattdm: we should probably start a convo with the desktop WG
about how to handle that
17:21:10 <jzb> mattdm: VDI gets into a lot of areas that it would make sense to have
its own SIG, I think.
17:21:28 * mattdm nods
17:21:38 * samkottler agrees with jzb
17:22:01 <frankieonuonga> can someone please bring me up to speed
17:22:23 <mattdm> frankieonuonga we're talking about the PRD
17:22:37 <mattdm> right now, use cases -- just referring to the message I posted
about that on the mailing list
17:23:01 <frankieonuonga> mattdm: thank you
17:24:03 <mattdm> Is there another area we should start a mailing list thread
17:24:35 <samkottler> #action samkottler to start thread to desktop WG about desktop
17:24:52 <jzb> mattdm: who's on the detailed requirements section?
17:25:07 <jzb> or are we holding that for use cases?
17:25:14 <mattdm> i think we need to get the use cases nailed down
17:25:17 <jzb> K
17:26:39 <mattdm> and crickets :)
17:27:07 <samkottler> do we want to go over the product branding doc again?
17:27:17 <frankieonuonga> just a sec before we go there
17:27:49 <frankieonuonga> i posted something on that doc and I think it is not that
good..but i need to know if it is in the right dirction
17:28:10 <frankieonuonga> can someone please just have a quick look at apache
17:28:39 * mattdm looks
17:28:48 <samkottler> I think we'll ultimately end up removing those individual
17:29:23 <frankieonuonga> i agree with samkottler because that section is all IAAS.
that should all be the same.
17:29:23 <mattdm> I don't think it hurts to have a "target
environments" section, just not under use cases
17:29:35 <frankieonuonga> independent of the interfacing software
17:30:39 <mattdm> does anyone feel inspired to start filling out the second half of
17:31:12 <samkottler> I can take the Logging and Configuration management sections
17:31:29 <mattdm> also the release cycle / updates things we talked about previously
should go in here somewhere.
17:31:51 <frankieonuonga> release cycles is something i can work on
17:32:01 <mattdm> cool thanks
17:32:01 <frankieonuonga> considering i volunteered to help dgilmore with that
17:32:06 <mattdm> yeah :)
17:32:19 <jzb> mattdm: I can take support requirements
17:32:48 <samkottler> some of these are a little meta (i.e. releases) and others
feel more technical
17:32:53 <samkottler> should we split them into two sections?
17:33:02 <mattdm> samkottler yes good suggestion.
17:33:06 <jzb> for "release criteria" are we adopting standard Fedora
17:33:18 <jzb> is there anything really original we need to consider there?
17:33:41 <mattdm> jzb I think that section should be general and point to something
about how we will define/enhance/implement updated cloud criteria
17:33:54 <mattdm> we don't want the actual release criteria in this document
17:34:38 <jzb> K
17:36:35 <samkottler> okay seems like there are people who are going to be working
on the majority of the sections
17:36:48 <samkottler> I'll have a bunch of time over the weekend to work on it
17:37:19 <mattdm> awesome. I think "generally jump in and work on
anything" applies. Even adding a sentence to some blank section helps.
17:38:10 <frankieonuonga> isnt the deadline 15th
17:38:26 <mattdm> yeah we are not going to make that deadline :)
17:38:32 <frankieonuonga> or when are we suppose to be done..cause if we do not meet
his we need to get guys to hack away on this
17:38:38 <samkottler> frankieonuonga: the deadline is one that we set for ourselves
17:38:50 <mattdm> We are supposed to be done in january. But it seemed like it would
be good to have a draft by next week.
17:38:53 <frankieonuonga> oh yeah...that is the one i suggested
17:38:55 <frankieonuonga> ha ha
17:38:57 <mattdm> because of the holidays
17:38:57 <frankieonuonga> how can i forget
17:39:03 <mattdm> It was not a bad plan :)
17:39:06 <frankieonuonga> thank you guys
17:39:22 <frankieonuonga> yeah i recall now mattdm and sam
17:39:28 <frankieonuonga> thank you for implementing this
17:39:43 <samkottler> I don't have anything else to bring up today unless folks
want to go over the production branding
17:39:46 <samkottler> product**
17:40:09 <jzb> samkottler: you're referring to the ticket responding to Mo's
17:40:15 <samkottler> jzb: yep
17:40:18 <frankieonuonga> i would like to go through that and hear what guys have to
17:40:25 <jzb> samkottler: er, that was due last week
17:40:34 <samkottler> ah right
17:40:35 <jzb> samkottler: I took the feedback we had and sent it on last week
17:40:36 * samkottler remembers now
17:40:42 <samkottler> jzb+++++
17:41:08 <jzb> I haven't gotten an ACK yet, but I'm assuming it's
17:41:33 <samkottler> #topic open floor
17:41:42 <samkottler> anyone got anything else to bring up before we call it quits
for the day?
17:42:47 <jzb> nope
17:42:50 * samkottler takes that as a no
17:43:02 <samkottler> #endmeeting