Open Stack

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Doug Wiegley <dougwig at parksidesoftware.com>
wrote:

> I don’t think it ninja merged. It had plenty of reviews, and was open
> during international hours. I don’t have any issue there.
>
> I don’t like the crazy early meeting, so I set out to prove it didn’t
> matter:
>
> Average attendance before rotating: 20.7 people
> Average attendance on Monday afternoons (U.S. time): 20.9
> Average attendance on Tuesday morning (U.S. time): 23.7
>
> Stupid data, that’s not what I wanted to see.
>
> I haven’t yet correlated people to which meeting time yet, but attendance
> was slightly up during the crazy early hated time, across the 1.25 years it
> was running (started 9/9/14). This is just people saying something; lurkers
> can just read the logs.
>
> Data is from eavesdrop meeting logs, if anyone else wants to crunch it.
>
> Since it's ridiculous to assume people are required to attend this
meeting, one easy solution to this would be to go back to the rotating
meeting and have a different chair for the Tuesday morning PST meeting. I
think rotating chairs for this meeting would be a good idea for a multitude
of reasons (spreads the pain, lets others have a chance at the pulpit,
grooms future meeting leaders, etc.).

Thanks,
Kyle


> Thanks,
> doug
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Tony Breeds <tony at bakeyournoodle.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:27:30PM +0100, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> >> Agreed with Gary on behalf of my European compatriots. (Note that I
> >> *personally* +1’d the patch because I don’t mind, doing late hours
> anyway;
> >> but it’s sad it was ninja merged without giving any chance for those
> from
> >> affected timezones to express their concerns).
> >
> > So Ninja merged has a negative connotation that I refute.
> >
> > I merged it.  It was judgment error, and I apologise for that.
> >
> > * I found and read through the list thread.
> > * Saw only +1's yours included
> >    - known you'd be affected I used your +1 as a barometer
> >
> > My mistake was not noticing your request to leave the review open for
> longer.
> >
> > I also noted in my review that reverting it is pretty low cost to back
> it out
> > if needed.
> >
> > I understand that the 'root cause' for this change was the yaml2ical
> issue that
> > stemmed from having 2 odd week in a row.  We've fixed that [1]. I'm also
> > working a a more human concept of biweekly meeting in yaml2ical.
> >
> > Tony
> > [1] the next time it could have been a problem is 2020/2021 ;P
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160112/60cd55c9/attachment.html>