Open Stack

> On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Tony Breeds <tony at bakeyournoodle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:35:05AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> There has been a bit of tension lately around creating IRC meetings.
>> I've been busy[1] cleaning up unused slots and defragmenting biweekly
>> ones to open up possibilities, but truth is, even with those changes
>> approved, there will still be a number of time slots that are full:
>> 
>> Tuesday 14utc -- only biweekly available
>> Tuesday 16utc -- full
>> Wednesday 15utc -- only biweekly available
>> Wednesday 16utc -- full
>> Thursday 14utc -- only biweekly available
>> Thursday 17utc -- only biweekly available
>> 
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:dec2016-cleanup
>> 
>> Historically, we maintained a limited number of meeting rooms in order
>> to encourage teams to spread around and limit conflicts. This worked for
>> a time, but those days I feel like team members don't have that much
>> flexibility in picking a time that works for everyone. If the miracle
>> slot that works for everyone is not available on the calendar, they tend
>> to move the meeting elsewhere (private IRC channel, Slack, Hangouts)
>> rather than change time to use a less-busy slot.
>> 
>> So I'm now wondering how much that artificial scarcity policy is hurting
>> us more than it helps us. I'm still convinced it's very valuable to have
>> a number of "meetings rooms" that you can lurk in and be available for
>> pings, without having to join hundreds of channels where meetings might
>> happen. But I'm not sure anymore that maintaining an artificial scarcity
>> is helpful in limiting conflicts, and I can definitely see that it
>> pushes some meetings away from the meeting channels, defeating their
>> main purpose.
>> 
>> TL;DR:
> 
> Shouldn't this have been the headline ;P
> 
>> - is it time for us to add #openstack-meeting-5 ?
> 
> 13:38 <tonyb> info #openstack-meeting-5
> 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Information on #openstack-meeting-5:
> 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Founder    : Magni, openstackinfra
> 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Successor  : freenode-staff
> 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Registered : Nov 27 20:02:51 2015 (1y 1w 1d ago)
> 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Mode lock  : +ntc-slk
> 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Flags      : GUARD
> 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- *** End of Info ***
> 
> So if we're going to go down that path it's just a matter of the appropriate
> changes in openstack-infra/{system,project}-config

I would be for adding at least 1-2 general meeting rooms.
> 
>> - should we more proactively add meeting channels in the future ?
> 
> In an attempt to get send the worlds most "on the fence" reply.  I really like
> the current structure, and I think it works well for the parts of the community that
> touch lots of projects.  Having said that in my not very scientific opionion
> that's a very small amount of the community.  I think that most contributors
> would benefit from moving the meetings into $project specific rooms as Amrith,
> Matt and (kinda sorta) Daniel suggested.

Do we know how many of the project level rooms currently have bots?  I know I ran into an issue that one of the bots was at its maximum (128 rooms) and, therefore, I concerned about the infrastructure necessary to support too many new rooms if there is a new wave of changes to add bots.
> 
> Yours Tony.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161204/3bce17d7/attachment.html>