Open Stack

Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> +1 to involving the liaisons more directly
> 
> -1 to the meeting size growing too large for productive real-time
>    communication on IRC
> 
> IME, there's a practical limit on the number of *active* participants
> in an IRC meeting. Not sure what that magic threshold is, but I suspect
> not much higher than 25.

I really don't expect 25 people to actively discuss a given topic. It
happened in the past in that meeting, in what I call "town hall"
discussions, where the chair is generally after a wide range of feedback
to get the temperature reading on a specific issue. But most "issues"
raised usually crystallize into 4-8 active participants. Much like
design summit sessions :)

> So given that we're in an era of fretting about the scalability
> challenges facing cross-project concerns, I'd hate to paint ourselves
> into a corner with another cross-project scalability challenge.
> 
> How about the agenda each week includes a specific invitation to a
> subset of the liaisons, based on relevance?
> 
> (e.g. the week there's a CI brownout, request all the QA liaisons attend;
>  whereas the week that the docs team launch a new contribution workflow,
>  request that all the docs liaisons are present).
> 
> Possibly with a standing invite to the release-mgmt liaison (or PTL)?

CPLs would be invited, but this is extremely optional to them (like it
is for everyone else). It also reduces the need to attend for the PTL --
they can ask one of their CPLs to represent the project on a particular
issue. It's really not as if all PTLs were always showing up to that
meeting anyway.

> Of course, as you say, the meeting is otherwise open-as-open-can-be.

Right, and I think that's the critical point -- we are not really
changing the nature of the meeting here, we are just changing the
messaging around it to make sure cross-project liaisons know they are
welcome to participate and/or propose topics to discuss on the agenda.
Vocal people were already participating, the new messaging is just
reaching out to the shy ones.

I think we can give it a try -- if we realize this ends up being
non-productive or way too crowded, we can revisit. Let's iterate and
fail fast.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)