Open Stack

+1 to bringing back formal meetings. A few replies below regarding
time/agenda.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 5:38 AM Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

> Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> writes:
>
> > Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> >>   ---- On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 02:47:53 +0900 Jeremy Stanley <
> fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote ----
> >>   > On 2018-10-04 13:40:05 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >>   > [...]
> >>   > > TC members, please reply to this thread and indicate if you would
> >>   > > find meeting at 1300 UTC on the first Thursday of every month
> >>   > > acceptable, and of course include any other comments you might
> >>   > > have (including alternate times).
> >>   >
> >>   > This time is acceptable to me. As long as we ensure that community
> >>   > feedback continues more frequently in IRC and on the ML (for example
> >>   > by making it clear that this meeting is expressly *not* for that)
> >>   > then I'm fine with resuming formal meetings.
> >>
> >> +1. Time works fine for me, Thanks for considering the APAC TZ.
> >>
> >> I agree that we should keep encouraging the  usual discussion in
> existing office hours, IRC or ML. I will be definitely able to attend other
> 2 office hours (Tuesday  and Wednesday) which are suitable for my TZ.
> >
> > 1300 UTC is obviously good for me, but once we are off DST that will
> > mean 5am for our Pacific Time people (do we have any left ?).
> >
> > Maybe 1400 UTC would be a better trade-off?
>
> Julia is out west, but I think not all the way to PST.
>

My home time zone is PST. It would be awesome if we could hold the meeting
an hour later, but I can get up early in the morning once a month. If we
choose to meet more regularly, then a one hour later start would be more
appreciated if it is not too much of an inconvenience to APAC TC members.
That being said, I do typically get up early, just not 0500 early that
often.


>
> > Regarding frequency, I agree with mnaser that once per month might be
> > too rare. That means only 5-ish meetings for a given a 6-month
> > membership. But that can work if we use the meeting as a formal progress
> > status checkpoint, rather than a way to discuss complex topics.
>
> I think we can definitely manage the agenda to minimize the number of
> complex discussions. If that proves to be too hard, I wouldn't mind
> meeting more often, but there does seem to be a lot of support for
> preferring other venues for those conversations.
>
>
+1 I think there is a point where we need to recognize there is a time and
place for everything, and some of those long running complex conversations
might not be well suited for what would essentially be "review business
status" meetings.  If we have any clue that something is going to be a very
long and drawn out discussion, then I feel like we should make an effort to
schedule individually.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20181005/b4412f85/attachment.html>