Open Stack

On 05/05/17 11:22 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>Sean McGinnis wrote:
>> [...]
>> But part of my concern to getting rid of the meeting is that I do find it
>> valuable. The arguments against having it are some of the same I've heard for
>> our in-person events. It's hard for some to travel to the PTG. There's a lot
>> of active discussion at the PTG that is definitely a challenge for non-native
>> speakers to keep up with. But I think we all recognize what value having events
>> like the PTG provide. Or the Summit/Design Summit/Forum/Midcycle/
>> pick-your-favorite.
>
>It's a great point. We definitely make faster progress on some reviews
>by committing to that one-hour weekly busy segment. I think the
>difference with the PTG (or midcycles) is that PTG is a lot more
>productive setting than the meeting is, due to increased, face-to-face
>bandwidth combined with a flexible schedule. It's also an exceptional
>once-per-cycle event, rather than how we conduct business day-to-day.
>It's useful to get together and we are very productive when we do, but
>that doesn't mean we should all move and live all the time in the same
>house to get things done.
>
>I think we have come to rely too much on the weekly meeting. For a lot
>of us, it provides a convenient, weekly hour to do TC business, and a
>helpful reminder of what things should be reviewed before it. It allows
>to conveniently ignore TC business for the rest of the week.
>Unfortunately, due to us living on a globe, it happens at an hour that
>is a problem for some, and a no-go for others. So that convenience is
>paid in the price of other's inconvenience or exclusion. Changing or
>rotating the hour just creates more confusion, disruption and misery. So
>I think we need to reduce our dependency on that meeting.
>
>We don't have to stop doing meetings entirely. But I think that
>day-to-day TC business should be conducted more on the ML and the
>reviews, and that meetings should be exceptional. That can be achieved
>by posting a weekly pulse email, and only organizing meetings when we
>need the additional bandwidth (like if the review and ML threads are not
>going anywhere). Then the meeting can be organized at the most
>convenient time for the most critical stakeholders, rather than at the
>weekly set time that provides the less overall inconvenience. If we need
>a meeting to directly discuss a new project team proposed by people
>based in Beijing, we should not have that meeting at 4am Beijing time,
>and that should be the only meeting topic.

++

Yes, and I wouldn't even call these ad-hoc conversations meetings. Really, it's
more like "logged" conversations. Logging is enabled in every main OpenStack
channel.

The important part is changing the way we interact and work from an TC
perspective. The way it's done currently is *NOT* very friendly for folks that
are not in a US timezone and that are non-English speakers.

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170507/849693ca/attachment.sig>