Open Stack

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:35:05AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> There has been a bit of tension lately around creating IRC meetings.
> I've been busy[1] cleaning up unused slots and defragmenting biweekly
> ones to open up possibilities, but truth is, even with those changes
> approved, there will still be a number of time slots that are full:
> 
> Tuesday 14utc -- only biweekly available
> Tuesday 16utc -- full
> Wednesday 15utc -- only biweekly available
> Wednesday 16utc -- full
> Thursday 14utc -- only biweekly available
> Thursday 17utc -- only biweekly available
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:dec2016-cleanup
> 
> Historically, we maintained a limited number of meeting rooms in order
> to encourage teams to spread around and limit conflicts. This worked for
> a time, but those days I feel like team members don't have that much
> flexibility in picking a time that works for everyone. If the miracle
> slot that works for everyone is not available on the calendar, they tend
> to move the meeting elsewhere (private IRC channel, Slack, Hangouts)
> rather than change time to use a less-busy slot.
> 
> So I'm now wondering how much that artificial scarcity policy is hurting
> us more than it helps us. I'm still convinced it's very valuable to have
> a number of "meetings rooms" that you can lurk in and be available for
> pings, without having to join hundreds of channels where meetings might
> happen. But I'm not sure anymore that maintaining an artificial scarcity
> is helpful in limiting conflicts, and I can definitely see that it
> pushes some meetings away from the meeting channels, defeating their
> main purpose.
> 
> TL;DR:

Shouldn't this have been the headline ;P

> - is it time for us to add #openstack-meeting-5 ?

13:38 <tonyb> info #openstack-meeting-5
13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Information on #openstack-meeting-5:
13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Founder    : Magni, openstackinfra
13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Successor  : freenode-staff
13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Registered : Nov 27 20:02:51 2015 (1y 1w 1d ago)
13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Mode lock  : +ntc-slk
13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- Flags      : GUARD
13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ at services.)- *** End of Info ***

So if we're going to go down that path it's just a matter of the appropriate
changes in openstack-infra/{system,project}-config

> - should we more proactively add meeting channels in the future ?

In an attempt to get send the worlds most "on the fence" reply.  I really like
the current structure, and I think it works well for the parts of the community that
touch lots of projects.  Having said that in my not very scientific opionion
that's a very small amount of the community.  I think that most contributors
would benefit from moving the meetings into $project specific rooms as Amrith,
Matt and (kinda sorta) Daniel suggested.

Yours Tony.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161205/61393238/attachment.pgp>