Open Stack

On 5/16/16 4:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Sat, May 14 2016, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
>
>> I think people prefer to use ML a lot and I am not a great fan of the
>> same. It is a multi-cast way of communication and it has assumptions
>> around time, space, intent of the audience & intent to actually read
>> them. Same is for gerrit/etherpad.
> It's asynchronous, that's why people tend to prefer it. You can deal
> with it when it's the most appropriate for you.

Agreed :-)

I did not mention but the time scale I was thinking was months but still
wanted to get a sense of what people think in general!

>
>
> […]
>
>> Another step is to arrange/show-up in meetings, yes this is tedious but
>> extremely vital. This is the place where you can actually determine if
>> the convergence factor is more or less. I find that a lot of people take
>> meetings lightly and their approach isn't establishing a deterministic
>> behavior in the team. Many times, it becomes a disruptive behavior and
>> the convergence decreases significantly.
> OTOH meetings are terrible as they put a lot of constraints on people
> that want to participate but are unable to. Not good for an open
> community.
>
> However, that has the upside of forcing people to make sacrifices if
> they *really* want to participate in a conversation, whereas, as you
> stated, anyone can jump in a mailing-list thread and start bike-shed,
> even if they don't really care.
>
> My experience is that it's still better to handle mailing list, and to
> only deal with people you know might be interested in really helping,
> and ignore the rest.

Noted. I guess there's some tribal knowledge on the best practices. Some
people take some comments too seriously and that's a issue if cores find
it inconvenient.

>
>> Though, I think every team needs to be synchronous about their approach
>> and not use delayed mechanisms like ML or gerrit.
> That's rather the first symptoms of a dysfunctional team that is not
> able to communicate properly. So you need to force people to be on the
> same team so they *really* communicate without other choices.


All good points in a list.


>
>> * Also, one very important thing that I keep hearing: "I do not like
>> that" without any other information, as an argument to disregard
>> technical proposals. I think it is very disruptive and irrational way to
>> express arguments. We are not buying flowers in OpenStack, we need to
>> keep rationality in check when we express our opinions. It reduces
>> convergence factor and increases dubiety among the developers &
>> reviewers. Then we have a ecosystem where people do not understand why
>> we do things the way we do it. We should not stop businesses just
>> because someone doesn't like something, please no. Lack of rationale can
>> actually do that.
> Agreed, I encounter(ed) a lot of those "don't like" comments. If it's
> not from core reviewers, people should learn to ignore those -1, and if
> it's core reviewers… you better fix the core reviewers. ;-)

Haha, nice one -- fix the cores ;-)

>
> My 2c,

Appreciate the feedback!

>
> Cheers,

-- 

Thanks,
Nikhil