14:04:53 #startmeeting oVirt Weekly Meeting 14:04:53 Meeting started Wed May 15 14:04:53 2013 UTC. The chair is mburns. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:04:53 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:05:06 #topic agenda and roll call 14:05:24 mburns, Suggestions for encouraging changes to be made to this page: http://www.ovirt.org/OVirt_3.3_release-management 14:05:34 hi jb_netapp 14:05:41 #info most of the maintainers aren't available today, so a slightly ad-hoc agenda... 14:06:12 jb_netapp, mburns, I suggest we concentrate on improving the visibility on the arch list into the state of the release 14:06:12 hi dneary 14:06:37 We're running towards a feature freeze/beta date with no idea what the status of things is 14:06:37 dneary: do you have any update from the shanghai workshop? 14:06:43 mburns, I was not there 14:06:46 dneary: ok 14:06:51 theron and cctrieloff were 14:07:58 dneary: my minutes from the weekly meetings go out to the board and users list and include status of all the features that i know about 14:08:05 i can expand that to the arch list as well 14:08:22 dneary: though i am dependent on maintainers being here to talk about the features... 14:08:52 Plus, it's confusing. Just to take one example: RAM snapshots has a feature page, it's in "Implementation started", but it's not listed as either a "Must" or "Should" feature higher on the page 14:09:30 mburns, This is about more than the process of publishing minutes. 14:11:13 mburns, I agree, it requires that developers and maintainers give visibility into what is being done, when, and when it's "ready" 14:11:13 dneary: i agree the page needs an overhaul 14:12:08 dneary: i'll try to take a pass at that page in the next couple days 14:12:16 but i just don't know a lot of the info that you want 14:14:00 #info need better status communication on features 14:14:12 #info need to review features for must/should release criteria 14:14:34 #action mburns to update the release management page with as many details as he knows 14:15:19 #action mburns to reach out to other maintainers to make sure their pages are updated as well 14:15:37 dneary: anything i missed in those #infos and #actions? 14:16:07 mburns, Sounds good 14:16:14 #topic 14:16:20 #topic Other Topics 14:16:23 anything else? 14:16:24 I'm writing a follow up email to arch@ also - pointing out a lot of the issues I have with that page 14:16:42 People seem to add new features freely, with no consideration for the MUST/SHOULD lists at the top 14:17:04 They're essentially two independent things: what we said we'd do at the start of the release cycle, and what's getting done 14:17:25 i think features and release criteria are separate 14:17:38 though some features should be part of the release criteria, they don't all have to be 14:17:47 Only if your release criteria do not include "Feature X should be done" 14:17:56 Ah, I see what you mean 14:18:16 Well, I would at least expect all of the "MUST" features to be linked to feature pages at this point 14:18:38 dneary: example: self-hosted engine feature -- that's something we're trying to get in this release 14:18:40 jb_netapp, What do you think? 14:19:00 but it's not really a blocker (and actually is likely to slip to 3.4, i think) 14:19:43 mburns, I see 14:19:54 dneary: but yes, the big features that are critical should be listed in the Must list 14:20:23 i just don't think anyone went through and did the analysis of what features are release blockers and what ones are not 14:21:59 dneary: given lack of people here (since jb_netapp dropped), i think continuing this on email is the right thing to do 14:22:08 Yup 14:22:15 #endmeeting