Open Stack

On 2017-05-16 11:46 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 05/16/2017 11:17 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:38:34AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> See $TITLE :)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dims
>>>
>> My preference would be to have an #openstack-tc channel.
>>
>> One thing I like about the dedicated meeting time was if I was not able to
>> attend, or when I was just a casual observer, it was easy to catch up on
>> what was discussed because it was all in one place and did not have any
>> non TC conversations interlaced.
>>
>> If we just use -dev, there is a high chance there will be a lot of cross-
>> talk during discussions. There would also be a lot of effort to grep
>> through the full day of activity to find things relevant to TC
>> discussions. If we have a dedicated channel for this, it makes it very
>> easy for anyone to know where to go to get a clean, easy to read capture
>> of all relevant discussions. I think that will be important with the
>> lack of a captured and summarized meeting to look at.
> The thing is, IRC should never be a summary or long term storage medium.
> IRC is a discussion medium. It is a hallway track. It's where ideas
> bounce around lots are left on the floor, there are lots of
> misstatements as people explore things. It's not store and forward
> messaging, it's realtime chat.
>
> If we want digestible summaries with context, that's never IRC, and we
> shouldn't expect people to look to IRC for that. It's source material at
> best. I'm not sure of any IRC conversation that's ever been clean, easy
> to read, and captures the entire context within it without jumping to
> assumptions of shared background that the conversation participants
> already have.
>
> Summaries with context need to emerge from here for people to be able to
> follow along (out to email or web), and work their way back into the
> conversations.
>
> 	-Sean
>
I'll disagree on this point.

I do agree IRC is a discussion medium. I further agree that any 
agreements decided upon need to be further disseminated via other media. 
However, I disagree the only value for those trying to catch up with 
items that took place in the past lies in a digestible summary. The 
conversation of how that agreement was arrived at holds great value.

Feel free to disregard what I have to say, because I'm not really 
involved right now. But I would like to feel that should occasion arise 
I could step back in, do my homework reading past conversations and have 
a reasonable understanding of the current state of things.

For me OpenStack is about people, foibles and mistakes included. I think 
there is a huge value in seeing how a conversation develops and how an 
agreement came into being, sometimes this is far more valuable to me 
than the agreement itself. Agreements and policies are constantly 
changing, but the process of discussion and how we reach this agreement 
is often more important both to me and as a demonstration to others of 
how to interact effectively than the final agreement, which will likely 
change next release or two.

If you are going to do away with tc meetings and I can't find the 
backstory in an IRC tc meeting log then at least let me find the 
backstory in a channel somewhere.

I am in favour of using #openstack-dev for this purpose. I appreciate 
Sean McGuinnis' point about have the conversation focused, I don't think 
you would get that even if you had a dedicated #openstack-tc channel. 
Either channel would include side conversations and unrelated chat, I 
don't see anyway for that not to happen. So for me I would go with using 
what we already have, also including Sean and Doug's previous points 
that we already are fractured enough, it sure would be nice to see some 
good use of already existing public spaces.

Thank you,
Anita.