►
From YouTube: OpenStack DefCore E6 2014 03 20
Description
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreElephant.6
Summary
* Collected names for committee (PLEASE REVIEW)
* Plan for expanding the TCUP user base and asked for weekly updates from the RefStack PTL
* Plan for communicating progress: serveral docs will go out as individual emails (links in the notes)
* pre-meeting agenda with TC set with tentative dates
* We decided to drop the "programs vs projects" discussion for this cycle
* We set 4/1 @ 2pm as our next meeting time
B
A
C
E
A
A
A
For
publication
of
results,
so
something
that
this
is
something
that
came
up
from
the
board
meeting
about,
not
not
revealing
test
results
from
individual
companies.
This
pass,
we
can
totally
if
we
need
to.
We
can
talk
about
that
integration
of
the
driver.
Tres
is
another
action
from
the
board
meeting,
so
the
driver
test
efforts
were
going
to
be
integrated.
I
forgot
to
reach
out
to
Boris
to
make
sure
he
could
come
to
this
meeting.
A
E
The
well
I
yeah
I
mean
I
would
like
to
just
make
sure
we're
clarifying
that
it's
an
open
question
as
to
whether
or
not
we
become
an
official
that
we
weather
and
we
need
an
open
sec
program.
I,
don't
believe
we
do
I
think
we.
There
is
either
an
existing
program
that
we
could
tuck
into,
such
as
in
4q
a
or
we
should
just
represent
the
dress
deck
of
the
project
to
the
board
and
their
court
doesn't
need
a
separate
program.
E
A
A
E
E
A
A
D
A
A
F
A
A
Too,
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
that
we
have.
We
have
in
flight
right
now.
Let
me
go
through
what
they
are
and
then
we
can
drill
into
them.
The
first
one
is
something
we
got
board
approval
from
at
the
last
meeting,
which
was
to
talk
through
how
to
actually
start
publicizing
the
capabilities
matrix
and
that's
really
important.
I'm
going
to
ask
the
foundation
to
do
another
blog
post
and
help
publicize
and
go
to
the
main
list
to
have
people,
look
at
the
capabilities
matrix
and
start
giving
us
feedback
to
do
that.
A
We
have
to
have
something
written.
That
explains
what
this
is
and
helps
do
that,
and
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
circulate
a
draft
of
that
as
a
Google
document
through
this
committee,
what
I
was
hoping
to
do
is
have
a
first
pass
at
it
somewhere
here
it
is
so
I
started
an
outline
and
I
was
going
to
take
a
first
pass
at
writing
this
and
then
distribute
it
through
the
committee
as
Google
Doc
for
additional
review
and
edits.
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
D
A
A
F
F
A
A
E
A
Remember
everybody
is
going
to
get
a
shot
at
it,
we're
just
trying
to
build
up
enough
text
and
meaning
in
there
that
the
faster
edit
for
the
runner
audience
sure
okay,
driver
test
is
something
that
came
up
from
the
board.
I
think
this
one's
actually
ready
to
circulate
some
more
in
the
Deaf
core
committee,
so
I'll
send
us
out
as
a
link
with
people
to
be
able
to
comment,
but
this
is
really
for
John.
Think
we
want
to
toss
in
this
Jonathan
and
Boris.
E
Yes,
and
actually
so
for
those
of
you
who
are
who
were
not
at
the
board
meeting,
there's
a
parallel
effort
to
resolve
some
confusion
around
the
certification
of
third-party
driver
code.
That
is
either
in
or
outside
of
trunk,
and
the
board
decision
was
to
have
Boris
and
Jonathan
Bryce
work
with
deaf
core
committee
to
figure
out
how
to
combine
forces
somewhat
around
this,
and
so
rob
has
been
working
on
drafting
a
dock.
E
A
E
A
A
That's
different
this
one.
We
had
identified
three
options
in
our
last
meeting:
I
just
documented
those
these
have
been
given
to
Michael
and
an
as
to
review.
What
I
would
suggest
we
do
is
I'll
open
this
up
to
the
Deaf
core
for
from
a
review
perspective,
and
then
we
forward
it
to
the
TC
before
the
next
teasing
eating.
A
B
A
A
A
E
E
We've
already
voted
unanimously
on
that
as
one
of
the
principles
of
how
we're
going
to
define
core
and
so
I
don't
want
to
have
us
or
the
TC
spend
a
lot
of
time
around
false
dialogue
in
a
sense
of
saying.
Well,
we
could
compromise
in
some
way.
We
can't.
We
actually
already
had
a
board
vote.
We've
already
had
years
of
discussion,
and
so
the
alternative
to
the
desk
or
committee
responding
would
be
to
go
back
to
the
board
and
have
the
board
respond
to
the
TC
and
say
you
know.
E
Is
there
an
issue
in
how
this
was
presented?
Was
the
language
unclear?
Would
you
prefer
if
this
was
a
direct
board
to
TC
conversation
without
desk
or
in
the
middle?
Would
that
me
feel
you
more
comfortable?
You
just
never
want
Josh
in
the
room,
but
to
you
know,
come
back
to
the
fact
that
the
board
has
already
voted
on
this.
It's
already
done
from
the
board
standpoint,
so
we're
going
to
continue
with
designated
sections.
Would
you
like
to
be
involved
in
defining
that
sense?
D
E
Good,
no
I
think
you're
right,
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
us
to
be
responding
to
them
with
the
authority
of
the
board,
but
I'd
like
us
to
be
referring
to
the
fact
that
we're
acting
under
the
authority
of
the
board
and
we're
trying
to
do
something.
The
board
has
already
voted
up
doing
and
not
get
into,
because
what
we're
really
there
they're
treating
us
as
if
it's
you
and
I
having
a
conversation
with
a
pc
and
they're,
saying
well
we're
an
elected
body,
and
we
think
it
should
be
done
this
way.
C
A
C
C
E
B
E
C
A
Then
I
appreciate
that
I
think
you're
you're
definitely
right
and
my
request
has
been
that
we
would
set
up
the
interactive
meeting
with
an
ether
pad
pull
that
pull
those
questions
up
and
then
discuss
the
answers
interactively
because
I
don't.
I
don't
want
us
to
have
more
e-mails
back
and
forth
on
this
point.
In
that
point,
I
think
that
if
we
set,
if
we
just
sat
down
with
it,
we
could
answer
those
questions
in
a
reasonable
way.
Yeah
I'm.
C
B
C
B
My
phone
right,
I
think
part
of
the
problem
is
this
is
a
truly
horrible
time
of
the
release
cycle
to
be
getting
the
tc's
undivided
attention
for
a
block
of
time
right.
The
bunch
of
them
are
very,
very
busy
and
I
think
also
to
be
completely
honest.
A
bunch
of
them
think
what
some
of
them
think
thats
amazing,
will
devolve
into
the
guild
ass
and
when
they're
very
busy
they're,
not
super
enthused
about
signing
up
to
the
shout
of
that
for
an
hour.
A
But
I
am
yeah,
I
understand
their
their
concern.
I
think
that
that's
not
a
good
reason
to
skip
having
the
voice
meeting,
because
the
voice
meeting
would
resolve
this,
and
if
it's
just
the
two
of
you,
then
it
then
you
guys
are
there:
are
there
official
proxies
if
I
really
don't
want
to
have
more
back-and-forth
email
exchanges,
because
I
feel,
like
the
temperature
of
those
emails
page,
is
way
too
high
that
a
collaborative
meeting
where
we
sit
down
and
answer
the
questions
and
talk
through
the
options
seems
like
a
much
faster
way
to
resolve
this.
A
C
I
seriously,
it's
just
that
it's
a
very
busy
time-
and
this
request
came
in
oddly
and
we're
trying
to
clarify
his
work,
tech
nerds
and
we
don't
have
enough
direction
to
do
anything
with
draft
what
we
did,
and
that
was
with
probably
six
or
eight
of
us
work
on
it
than
everybody
voting
on
it.
So
yeah
I
don't
think
it's
anything,
but
that
because.
A
Because
I
would,
I
would
appreciate,
rather
than
just
sending
back
an
email
response
sitting
down
with
you
guys
and
been
talking
it
through,
so
that
we
come
up
with
something
that
we
think
is
going
to
make
sense.
This
is
you
guys,
know
the
personalities
and
the
people
and
the
issues
better
than
we
do,
and
so
I
think
that
just
seems
like
a
more
equitable
way
to
solve
it.
I
mean.
B
So
certainly
I
think
there's
no
harm
in
having
I
don't
know.
What's
called
a
pre-meeting
meeting,
we
say
you
know
and
rob
Josh
whatever
and
I
sit
down
and
say:
hey
you
know
what
do
we
want
to
say
to
the
teasing
but
I
just
think
if
you
try
and
get
the
you
know,
15
or
whatever
it
is
people
on
the
tee
see
in
a
room
for
an
hour
you're
not
going
to
get
an
out
conclusive
out
from
at
the
act.
B
I,
don't
think
the
TC
has
one
of
the
things
the
original
response
was
trying
to
say.
I
don't
think
the
consensus
in
the
TC
is
strong
enough
for
people
to
be
able
to
talk
about
actual
implementation.
I
think,
even
with
a
board
of
directors
motion
passed,
the
there
are
members
of
the
TC
who
don't
have
enough
of
the
background
to
understand
the
problem,
that's
being
attacked
and
why
it's
being
attacked
in
this
way.
So
the
inclination
is
going
to
be
to
stop
and
say,
hey.
F
B
Are
you
taking
this
approach?
Not
this
other
approach.
You
can
kind
of
see
if,
with
the
marconi
thing
that
was
happening
this
week
right,
a
TC
members
noticed
this
thing.
Finally,
that's
been
around
for
a
lot
of
time
and
said:
hey
just
a
second
I,
don't
understand
the
fundamental
design,
that's
what
these
people
are
inclined
to
do.
If
you
know
that
if
they
don't
understand,
they're,
going
to
stop
and
say
whoa,
what's
the
younger
one
chromatid
right.
A
D
B
A
We
need
the
it
would
be
nice
to
have
by
the
summit,
because
I
think
that
that's
that
that's
when
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
attention
on
it,
my
preference
would
be
that
it
would
be
done
that
we
have
some
basis
at
about
the
same
time
as
we
publicize
criteria,
because
I
think
that
those
things
are
going
to
draw
attention
to
it.
And
I
would
I
would
ask
that
we
could
do
this
in
phases.
Like
you
look
at
the
principles
that
define
designated
sections
and
agree
to
those
and
then
get
go
into
the
details.
A
F
I
would
say
this
is
sean.
I
would
say
that,
having
that
understanding
agreement
between
the
TC
and
and
the
board
is
kind
of
critical
to
have
before
the
scoring
information
starts
going
out,
it's
going
to
really
be
confusing
for
people.
If
they
don't
know
why
or
there's
confusion
about
whether
or
not
what
this
is
it's
going
to
be
not
good.
B
A
B
E
E
You
know,
required
to
be
deployed
in
every
OpenStack
environment,
and
that
would
be
awesome,
but
without
sufficient
has
covered,
it
cannot
be
considered
and
that
just
naturally
comes
out
of
the
way
the
criteria
and
disability
scoring
stays
are,
so
the
house
would
be
that
we
would
never
be.
We
would
never
be
coming
to
the
PC
and
saying
you
need
to
go,
find
people
to
do
test
coverage
that
should
that
should
be
a
natural
pressure.
E
B
B
B
F
No
I'm,
sorry
I
would
just
add
that
the
lack
of
test
coverage
in
some
areas
is
not
hidden.
People
know
about
it,
I've
gotten
it
feedback
from
that
on
a
variety
of
different
ways
and
the
fact
that
we've
kind
of
managed
to
get
this
far
with
with
having
these
gaps
a--'s
is
fine,
but
we
need
to
start
filling
these
gaps,
and
this
is
just
a
good
way
of
highlighting
the
need
and
we
will
be
rewarded.
B
A
B
They're
under
the
gun
trying
to
land
a
release
and
whilst
they
might
not
have
a
particular
problem,
is
it
with
new
tests
being
a
disappointment?
I'd
be
very
surprised
if
they
have
the
review
bandwidth
to
do
those
tests
fail
for
things
that
are
about
to
be
released.
That's
obviously
bad,
but
not
sure
that
we
have
the
dev
bandwidth
to
actually
go
through
when
sick
folks,
we've
only
just
discovered
we'd,
probably
deal
with
them
as
an
at
the
back
court
after
the
release.
B
At
this
point
of
things,
so
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
anything,
that's
going
to
cause
the
first
of
interest
attest
to
appear
that
need
to
review
and
landing,
and
that
may
or
may
not
pass.
You
know
in
our
test
environments,
and
that
will
then
cause
you
know,
but
that
we
should
definitely
fix,
but
don't
if
it's
not
a
fix
right
now.
The
other
concern
is
as
also
a
bunch
of
tests
that
don't
run
into
gates,
because
the
gate
only
runs
with
a
single
compute
node,
for
example.
B
So
the
concrete
example
like
Nova
live
migration
is
not
tested
in
the
gate
and
therefore
we
probably
believe
that
the
tempest
has
a
broken,
and
certainly
we
know
that
we
lack
sufficient
coverage
in
the
back
area.
So
I
imagine
there
are
bits
of
tempest
where
we're
missing
the
coverage
we
need
for
difficult
because
of
goat
limitation
and
gate
limitations
are
hard
to
fix
and
you're
going
to
get
the
0
for
action.
Changing
the
gate
at
this
point
in
the
release
cycle
right.
A
And
one
of
the
things
to
remember
in
all
this
is
that
we're
working
working
back
in
time
so
today
we're
looking
at
havana
and
a
lot
of
the
questions
you're
asking
or
not
issues
in
havana,
cuz.
It's
the
code
is
relatively
old,
so
we
can
get
through
this
first
pass
without
trying
to
figure
out,
create
a
frantic
rush
because
nobody's
adding
test
for
havana
right
now
and
that's
what
we.
B
That
was
kind
of
one
of
my
original
questions
right,
so
it's
dead
when
a
piece
of
paper
goes
to
vendors,
saying:
hey
guys,
you
have
to
comply
with
this.
Will
that
piece
of
paper
say
and
the
compliance
little
clematis
for
havana
or
will
cite
ounce
the
first
release,
where
we're
going
to
use
this
compliance
model.
E
The
first
release,
where
we'll
actually
be
doing
it,
concurrent
with
the
release,
will
be
you
know,
we're
doing
havana
now
we're
scoring
against
the
venom
now
and
the
goal
is
to
score
against
ice
house
after
I
post
released
by
about
90
days
and
to
catch
up
by
dunno.
So
we'll
have
two
full
releases
where
the
notion
of
what
must
have
comes
out
quite
a
bit
after
the
lease
does,
which
is
you
know,
partly
to
streamline
some
of
these
issues
around?
E
E
You
know
so
I
mean
I,
hear
a
lot
of
concerns.
You
have
about
the
process
as
a
whole
and
the
mechanisms
that
we're
using
to
do
a
capabilities
based
scoring
these
and
testing,
all
of
which
I
think
would
be
great
conversation
to
have
jointly
between
the
CC
and
the
board
around
def
core,
but
none
of
which
is
really
specific
to
the
designated
sections
questions
I.
A
E
B
Yes,
all
right,
I
didn't
say
you're
certainly
didn't
mean
to
say
just
then
that
you
know
the
TC
refuses
to
do
designated
sections
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
I'm
worried
about
some
process
issues,
but
I
think
we
could
do
that
in
parallel.
Right,
I
feel
like
death.
Corps
needs
to
kind
of
really
soon
go
to
the
tempest
et
al
and
be
like
hey
man,
we're
going
to
encourage
people
to
add
tests.
Your
thing
is
there
anything
that
we
should
be
aware
of.
B
That
might
cause
us
to
be
surprised,
and
you
know,
and
if
you
turn
around
and
say
and
you'll
be
think
with
these
things
are
going
to
appear
sometime
in
the
period
between
Icehouse
release
and
90
days
after
then,
that's
upside,
a
relatively
quiet
period
for
them
I,
would
think
so.
That's
probably
not
too
bad,
but
I
think
minimizing
surprise
would
involve
getting
the
tempest
PTL
to
be
aware
that
suddenly,
a
most
people
are
going
to
appear
and
so
you're
going
to
have
to
have
another
review,
bandwidth
and
stuff
like
that.
Oh.
A
To
be
fair,
I
I
actually
sat
in
the
summit
sessions
with
the
tempest
TTL
at
the
last
at
last
summit,
and
we
talked
about
this-
maybe
Robert
doesn't
remember,
but
I
mean
we
put
this
on
people's
radar,
then
and
I
appreciate
it's
been
a
long
time.
We're
actually
starting
to
put
things
in
front
of
people
in
in
very
you
know
very
concrete
ways
now
and
they're
going
to
react.
The
same
questions
and
we're
going
to
have
to
re-evaluate
this
totally
makes
sense.
A
B
I
think
one
of
the
thing
is
the
plan
is
a
lot
more
concrete
than
it
was
last
summit
and
tempt
us
to
operate
in
what
I'd
like
to
call
a
target-rich
environment
right
they've
been
dealing
with
incessant
gate,
breakages,
so
they've
probably
simply
dropped.
It
probably
simply
dropped
off
their
radar.
So
all
we
have
to
do
is
bring
it
back
up
to
the
list
of
things
that
they're
actively
thinking
about
to
get
because.
A
F
B
B
E
We
have
always
been
encouraging
others
to
do
the
load.
The
logic
has
always
behave,
you
want
to
contribute
code
and
you
are
contributing
test
for
the
code
doesn't
exist
if
it
is
not
tested,
it
does
not
exist,
and
so
the
reality
of
us
being
more
strict
about
that
and
saying
hey.
We
told
you
if
the
one
contested
it
doesn't
exist,
it
turns
out
now
we're
actually
going
to
tell
the
world
not
to
use
that
code,
because
there's
no
test,
that
is
the
conversation
we've
always
been.
E
Having
so
I
agree,
we
should
give
the
tempest
ppl
a
heads
up
and
be
like
guys
we're
going
to
get
really
serious
and
start
really
yelling
at
defenders
to
contribute
test,
but
we
have
been
telling
them
to
do
that.
The
entire
time,
and
while
it's
a
great
example
when
r
always
showed
up
and
said,
hey
was
going
to
apply
for
gold
membership.
What
should
we
do
to
be
credible?
The
first
thing
I
told
them
in
person
was,
you
should
go
right
to
pets
and
that's
exactly
what
they
did.
B
I,
like
I
agree,
these
tests
are
important.
I
agree
we
should
have
them.
I
think
any
level
we
can
use
to
force
vendors
to
contribute
specifically
to
testing
and
documentation
I
find
exciting
if
it
will
still
have
an
impact
on
the
tempest
team
right,
so
they
still
have
to
review
how
as
wellwe
tests
and
presumably
the
test
testing
the
gates
at
random
longer
because
they're
running
more
tests,
and
so
we
need
more
nodes
and
blah
blah
blah
right.
There
are
some
knock-on
effects
we
need
to
mechanically
work
through
then
also
shows
over
and.
A
A
B
Don't
like
I
really
hated,
there
are
some
technical
constraints
in
the
games
at
the
moment
that
might
cause
you
pain
there
right
like
if
the
feature
of
ender
is
going
to
add,
involves
more
than
one,
whose
node
and
over
you've
just
required
them
to
add
a
thing
that
they
can't
add.
Without
doing
all
this,
whatever
we
have
tangent
yeah
look
like
I
said
I
will
start
a
male
thread
between
you
guys
and
the
current
tempest
PTL.
Just
so
he's
got
an
official
heads
up
and
I.
B
B
E
B
C
E
So
he
saw
it
as
a
potentially
empowering
thing
and
then
he
was
quite
upset
that
maybe
it
was
going
to
be
the
TC
designating
sections
about
details,
so
the
I
mean
that
I
would
like
to
stay
out
of
that
debate,
because
I
think,
if
I
get
involved
it
will
make
it
worse,
so
I
think
making
the
TC
communicating
with
the
ptl's
is
better
than
us
doing
it.
Uh-Huh.
B
Yeah
I
guess
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
who
you
think
is
doing
that
work,
so
the
people
who
think
so,
you
think,
are
doing
that
we're
actually
doing
it.
I
would
be
very
hesitant
for
the
TC
to
pick
designated
sections
in
a
project
without
talking
to
the
PTL.
Sometimes
that
conversations
implies
videos
on
the
t
see
if
it's
not
if
they're
not,
then
it
should
be
explicit.
B
E
So
there
was
the
original
request
to
the
TC
that
Rob
and
I
came
with
was
we
were
asking
the
TC
not
to
create
designated
sections
but
to
work
with
us
to
define
a
process
to
create
designated
sections
with
the
expectation,
because
we
have
some
time
here
and
we're
not
trying
to
get
this
done
on
on
release
schedule,
yet
that
we
can
look
at
the
capabilities
that
looked
like
they
were
going
to
be,
must
have
and
say,
for
instance,
right
now.
It
doesn't
look
like
there
any
must
have
capabilities
in
heat.
E
So
we
probably
don't
need
to
worry
about
designated
sections
for
heat
yet
because
there
may
not
be
any,
must
have
capabilities
from
heat.
So
it's
a
moot
point
when
it
looks
like
the
scoring
for
a
particular
release
is
raising
a
set
of
capabilities
from
a
particular
project
to
must
have
status,
we're
going
to
be
able
to
then
lean
in
its
okay.
What
are
the
designated
sections
right
because
it
looks
like
this
is
going
to
be
unless
that
capability?
Okay,.
A
But
I
would
add
that
if
we
can
define
the
principles
by
which
designated
sessions
are
identified,
then
every
project
can
go
through
and
ask
scratch
their
head
and
ask
themselves
the
question:
what
are
my
designating
sections
so
it
becomes
much
easier.
It's
I
mean
it's
exactly
like
what
we
did
with
our
criteria
for
picking
capabilities
where
we
said
these
are
the
13
things
we
think
are
important
and
then,
when
you
look
at
them,
you
can
make
judgment
calls
right
even
before
anybody
else
scores.
It.
B
That's
actually
interesting
in
the
sense
of
the
TC
process,
for
something
going
from
incubated
to
integrated
is
we
have
a
big
checklist
and
we
ask
the
project
to
sit
down
and
my
answer
effectively.
All
these
questions
and
one
of
those
questions
could
be
what
bits
of
your
thing
do.
You
think
should
be
pluggable
to
save
praise
the
question
slightly
differently
and
then
yep.
So
you
know
the
PTL
and
the
team
that
wrote
the
thing
is
as
well.
This
is
our
proposal.
It
goes
to
the
TC
is
PO
the
integration
review
and
the
TC
says.
B
B
A
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
came
out
of
department
are
meeting
lat.
Our
last
def
core
meeting
was
that
I
think
enough
to
thrash
on
this.
We
could
just
define
some
basic
principles,
come
up
with
some
some
straw
man
and
with
a
small
group
and
then
present
that
and
people
will
review
it
sniff
test
it
and
we'll
probably
done
that
I
didn't
I
did
not
expect
when,
when
we
started
talking
about
this,
that
it
would
would
create
so
much
heat.
Perhaps
I
should
have
but
I
just
I.
B
A
B
A
B
Really
concrete
example
is,
you
know,
can
I
backport
features
from
Juneau
to
ice
house
and
have
ice
house
my
eyes
house
product
continued
to
meet
the
compliance
requirements
for
difficult,
and
you
know
what,
if
I'm,
not
according
what?
If
I'm
adding
a
feature
is
additive
change?
Okay,
and
you
know,
I,
don't
want
to
tell
you
what
my
aunt
is
on,
because
I
know
my
answers.
Don't
represent
everybody
on
the
taste
yeah.
E
The
designated
section
needed
to
have
been
submitted
to
one
of
any
of
the
upstream
OpenStack
repositories
in
question,
in
other
words,
contributing
it
as
a
patch
to
stable
or
contributing
of
the
patch
the
master
and
then
back
for
creating
your
own
release
was
fine,
even
if
it
hadn't
been
accepted
into
stable,
because
we
represent
and
in
fact
contributing
as
a
patch
and
not
making
us
through.
The
review
cycle
might
also
still
be
fine,
depending
on
the
nature
of
your
changes.
E
The
the
conventions
of
the
time
was
because
otherwise
people
have
to
patch
their
product,
and
they
may
have
to
patch
it
in
ways
that
they
cannot
get
the
upstream
community
to
agree
on
in
the
short
term
right,
but
but
that
shouldn't
be
violation
of
the
designated
sections
policy.
If
it's
made
in
best
faith-
and
this
is
really
the
goal
with
all
of
this-
is
to
define
a
best
based
mechanism.
That
does
not
require
audit
and
does
not
rely
on
uncomplicated
legal
footwork,
mm-hmm.
B
B
About
right
there,
people
of
the
TC
who
think
I'm
planning
out
wrong.
I
wasn't
talking
for
the
CC
when
I
made
that
suggestion.
That
was
in
one
of
the
consultation
II.
You
know
world
to
our
meetings.
Yep
and
I
haven't
managed
to
convince
everyone
on
the
50
that
I'm
a
genius
and
always
right,
I'm
working
well.
A
I
want
to
I
want
to
be
I
want
to
be
careful,
I
want
to
be
careful
with
times,
I
think.
What
we're
really
doing
right
now
is
we're
drilling
down
into
from
the
topic
of
our
joint
meeting
yeah.
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
see
if
we
can
set
a
time
for
the
joint
meeting
right
now,
and
then
we
I
think
we
have
more
than
in
more
than
an
hour
and
a
half
worth
of
agenda,
so
so.
B
That's
what
I
said:
I
don't
have
a
solid
read
on
how
successful
will
be
at
scheduling
this
thing.
The
other
thing
is
that
TC
never
does
it
so
I
don't
have
any
data
on
what
people's
voice
availability
is
like.
Like
I,
don't
know
how
many
people
are
attending
the
TC
IRC
meetings
with
us
being
in
a
physical
meeting
as
well
kind
of
I'm
like
an
unrelated
topic,
hi.
A
B
D
A
A
B
B
Of
by
definition,
8
p.m.
UTC
is
probably
the
best
default
time,
because
at
the
time
of
day,
when
all
the
TC
already
meet
so
okay,
I,
wouldn't
what
Tuesday
or
whatever
it
is
the
TC
meets
in
UTC,
but
another
day
at
that
time
is
probably
a
time.
That's
been
proven
that
CC
members
are
at
least
awake
and
your
computer
could
we
could
we
just
do.
A
A
C
A
A
A
E
I
think
that
we
can
probably
defer
bringing
it
back
for
further
discussion
until
after
the
first
set
of
scoring
comes
out,
I
think
the
I
think
some
of
the
more
recent
changes
to
logo
usage
and
potential
rework
of
trademark
policy
in
a
bunch
other
stuff
may
make
this
simpler
and
I
really
feel
like.
We
have
a
whole
bunch
of
different
people
coming
at
the
same
problem
from
different
angles,
without
coordinating
and
I
think
jumping
is
going
to
make
it
worse.
Ok,.
E
D
E
In
the
middle
of
trying
to
resolve
a
whole
bunch
of
these
concerns
around
you,
smart
and
so
I
think
I,
like
all
right,
yeah
I,
just
think.
If
we
continue
to
try
and
talk
about
the
mark
from
a
board
perspective
when
the
foundation
staff
are
doing
something
different,
we
really
need
better
coordination
there
and
so
I
would
ask
I
would
defer
to
Mark's
opinion
of
whether
or
not
we'll
help
her
hurt
I'm.
D
E
Yeah,
well
I
mean,
if
I
look
back
if
the
minutes,
the
minutes
and
and
Jonathan's
recap
of
the
last
three
board
meetings:
I,
don't
remember
its
ever
suggesting
that
we
collapse
the
the
OpenStack
distro
powered
by
OpenStack
and
built
for
OpenStack
trademarks
into
one
and
then
send
that
out
to
all
the
vendors
and
get
them
to
agree
to
it
right.
But.
E
D
A
D
D
F
E
D
E
It
is
Lord,
absolutely
bored
owns
any
changes
to
the
trademark
policy.
Absolutely
that
is
the
purpose
of
the
board.
So,
but
this
one
didn't
require
changer
the
power.
Let's
say
it's
being
executed
without
a
change
in
the
policy,
it's
being
done
as
a
change
to
the
use
of
logo
right,
so
it
which
is
computed.
E
A
E
E
A
E
D
E
A
Hi
I
also
agree
that
it
there
is
an
element
of
confusion
that
we're
creating
yeah.
It
makes
our
that
makes
our
deaf
core
job
harder,
but
it's
not
not
worth
it
yeah
all
right.
So
next
meeting
yeah
I
believe
we
have
a
lot
of
things
to
continue
discussing.
I
would
I
would
say
that
we
should
have
another
meeting.
I,
don't
know
if
we
can
do
it.
This
week
the
refs
TAC
team
is
meeting
Friday
afternoon
to
talk
about
some
home
fries.
E
Yeah
and
then
there's
the
rest
egg
meeting
and
then
we
need
the
we
need
the
rest,
exptl
descendant
and
status
update
out
to
def
core
committee.
So
we
can
think
about
crowdsourcing
data
and
the
capabilities
and
when
they're
going
to
be
done
and
then
I
would
propose,
we
have
our
next
chef
core
full
committee
meeting
after
we've
had
a
joint
session
with
the
TC.
If
that's
going
to
happen
soon
or
in
lieu
of
if
it's
not
going
to
happen
at
all
so.