Open Stack

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Armando M. <armamig at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 12 January 2016 at 20:07, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.).
>>
>
> With this suggestion you seem to imply that I only dropped the biweekly
> schedule because I didn't want to run the Tuesday ones, and that's unfair :)
>
> I would never imply such a thing, whether or not it would be true. :)


> Albeit I am not overly happy to wake up at 5.30am (in my timezone), I have
> done it so far because I believe it's my duty. That said, when I see that
> the nearly the same people show up (and meaningfully contribute) at both,
> then I'd rather have the majority of us have a "simpler" life.
>
> I have never been a fan of the biweekly schedule because it incentivises
> people not to turn up half the time (I certainly wouldn't have an incentive
> to wake up at ~6am if I didn't have to chair the meeting), however certain
> topics are only discussed once, and missing a meeting is a missed
> opportunity to actively contribute during meeting hours.
>
> Bear in mind that no-one is taking away the opportunity from people to
> contribute in the openstack-neutron channel and/or offline on the ML. I
> personally rely on it quite a bit.
>
> Absolutely. My main point was that spreading the load of things by perhaps
letting someone else run it may not be a bad idea.


> Cheers,
> Armando
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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/20160113/f60f93f5/attachment.html>