Open Stack

> On 2017. Apr 12., at 3:18, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
> 
> On 04/10/2017 04:41 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> 
>>> This might also tie back in with what cdent was mentioning, and if the
>>> flurry of conversation during a TC meeting throws people off, maybe
>>> the minutes should be digested after the meeting in the mailing list.
>>> I know the meeting is logged, but it can be hard to read through that
>>> without one's eyes glazing over due to the cross-talk and locker-room
>>> towel whipping going on.
>> 
>> Aw, you beat me to it. This is part of what I was going to say in
>> response to your earlier message. I think there are at least three
>> things to do, all of which you've touched on:
>> 
>> * Alternating the meetings, despite the issues with quorum, probably
>>  ought to happen. If the issues with quorum are insurmountable that
>>  may say something important about the TC's choice to be dependent
>>  on IRC meetings. Is it habit? Doesn't most of the real voting
>>  happen in gerrit? Can more of the discussion happen in email? I
>>  think we (by we I mean all of OpenStack) can and should rely on
>>  email more than we do expressly for the purpose of enabling people
>>  to include themselves according to their own schedules and their
>>  own speeds of comprehension.
> 
> Oh god. I feel like I'm going to start a vi-vs-emacs here ...
> 
> (Before I do - I agree with alternating meetings)
> 
> Email has similar but opposite problems- in that in email the lag is often too long, rather than too short. This can lead to:
> 
> - person A says a thing, then goes to sleep, because it's 1AM in their timezone.
> - 1000 people start a flame war based on a poor choice of phrase in the original email while person A sleeps
> - person A wakes up and is horrified to see what their simple sentence has done, begins day drinking
> 
> Now, as you might imagine the specifics might vary slightly - but I say the above to actually suggest that rather than it being an either/or - _both_ are important, and must be balanced over time.
> 
> Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and for replies to do the same. Some of us are loquatious and I imagine can be hard to follow even with time to read.
> 
> IRC allows someone to respond quickly, and for someone to be like "yo, totes sorry, I didn't mean that at all LOL" and to walk things back before a pile of people become mortally insulted.
> 
> Like now - hopefully you'll give me a smiley in IRC ... but you might not, and I'm stuck worrying that my tone came across wrong. Then if you just don't respond because ZOMG-EMAIL, I might start day drinking.
> 

Big +1 on balance.

I agree in general that we need to revisit how to be more inclusive and how to provide as equal conditions to people all around the globe as possible.

That said I still would like to keep the ability to have allocated time for synchronous communication and allow the TC to be more of a team as opposed to a group of people driving their own and some shared missions. I think it helps with seeing maybe different parts but still the same big picture and making the group more efficient with decision making and bringing the community forward.

By being a team person I also often feel the need to discuss items as it helps my brain to focus and elaborate better or come up with new ideas, while with offline communication it is easy to get distracted and miss some aspects of the given problem or idea.

However, especially as a non-native-English-speaker, I sometimes like to have the ability to read through a discussion maybe even several times before forming my response to it as opposed to being rushed to answer. :)

Thanks,
Ildikó


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170412/e78faa93/attachment.html>