Open Stack

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 8:49 PM Tony Breeds <tony at bakeyournoodle.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
majority of projects that don't hold primetime meeting slots.

While I don't think we should do away with meetings rooms, if a project
wants to hold meetings at a convenient time in their normal channel, I
think that's fine. Meeting conflicts will always exist. Major conflicts
will be resolved without the additional pressure of artificial scarcity.


>
> Yours Tony.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-- 
-Dolph
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161205/3fce0038/attachment.html>