Open Stack

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Jay Dobies <jason.dobies at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.


I agree; I think it's useful to make sure we keep on top of the stats, but
I don't think it needs to be done in 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".
>

But the next question is: "Who is going to release the world?" and that is
usually a volunteer from the meeting.

Perhaps if we had a regular release team this could be arranged outside of
the meeting.


>
> 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.


One issue I have with these is that I don't know if they get seen by people
who aren't at the meeting. Perhaps a weekly email pointing to the minutes
and hilighing these would help?


>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141204/4f7bdbbf/attachment.html>