Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 01:09 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> Expecting cores to be at these sorts of things seems pretty reasonable
>> to me, given the usefulness (and gravity) of the discussions we've been
>> having so far. Companies with more cores will have to send more or make
>> some hard decisions, but I don't want to cut back on the meetings until
>> their value becomes unjustified.
>
> I disagree.  IMO, *expecting* people to travel, potentially across the
> globe, 4 times a year is an unreasonable expectation, and quite
> uncharacteristic of open source projects.  If we can't figure out a way
> to have the most important conversations in a way that is inclusive of
> everyone, we're failing with our processes.

I am a bit confused by this stance to be honest. You yourself said
when you were Icehouse PTL that you wanted cores to come to the
summit. What changed?

> By all means, if a subset wants to meet up and make progress on some
> things, I think that's fine.  I don't think anyone think it's not
> useful.  However, discussions need to be summarized and taken back to
> the list for discussion before decisions are made.  That's not the way
> things are trending here, and I think that's a problem.

The etherpad for the meetup has extensive notes. Any summary I write
will basically be those notes in prose. What are you looking for in a
summary that isn't in the etherpad? There also wasn't a summary of the
Icehouse midcycle produced that I can find. Whilst I am happy to do
one for Juno, its a requirement that I hadn't planned for, and is
therefore taking me some time to retrofit.

I think we should chalk the request for summaries up experience and
talk through how to better provide such things at future meetups.

Michael

-- 
Rackspace Australia