[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Meeting purpose

Jay Dobies jason.dobies at redhat.com
Thu Dec 4 14:35:50 UTC 2014

>> As an example of something that I think doesn't add much value in the
>> meeting - DerekH has already been giving semi-regular CI/CD status
>> reports via email. I'd like to make these weekly update emails
>> regular, and take the update off the meeting agenda. I'm offering to
>> share the load with him to make this easier to achieve.

The Tuskar item is the same way. Not sure how that was added as an 
explicit agenda item, but I don't see why we'd call out to one 
particular project within TripleO. Anything we'd need eyes on should be 
covered when we chime in about specs or reviews needing eyes.

>> Are there other things on our regular agenda that you feel aren't
>> offering much value?
> I'd propose we axe the regular agenda entirely and let people promote
> things in open discussion if they need to. In fact the regular agenda
> often seems like a bunch of motions we go through... to the extent that
> while the TripleO meeting was going on we've actually discussed what was
> in my opinion the most important things in the normal #tripleo IRC
> channel. Is getting through our review stats really that important!?

I think the review stats would be better handled in e-mail format like 
Derek's CI status e-mails. We don't want the reviews to get out of hand, 
but the time spent pasting in the links and everyone looking at the 
stats during the meeting itself are wasteful. I could see bringing it up 
if it's becoming a problem, but the number crunching doesn't need to be 
part of the meeting.

>>   Are there things you'd like to see moved onto, or off, the agenda?
> Perhaps a streamlined agenda like this would work better:
>   * Bugs

This one is valuable and I like the idea of keeping it.

>   * Projects needing releases

Is this even needed as well? It feels like for months now the answer is 
always "Yes, release the world".

I think our cadence on those release can be slowed down as well (the 
last few releases I've done have had minimal churn at best), but I'm not 
trying to thread jack into that discussion. I bring it up because we 
could remove that from the meeting and do an entirely new model where we 
get the release volunteer through other means on a (potentially) less 
frequent release basis.

>   * Open Discussion (including important SPECs, CI, or anything needing
> attention). ** Leader might have to drive this **

I like the idea of a specific Specs/Reviews section. It should be quick, 
but a specific point in time where people can #info a review they need 
eyes on. I think it appeals to my OCD to have this more structured than 
interspersed with other topics in open discussion.

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list