Open Stack

On 2018-11-21 06:49:31 +1100 (+1100), Ian Wienand wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:09:29AM -0800, Clark Boylan wrote:
> > Both ideas seem sound to me and I think we should try to implement
> > them for the Infra team. I propose that we require agenda updates 24
> > hours prior to the meeting start time and if there are no agenda
> > updates we cancel the meeting. Curious to hear if others think this
> > will be helpful and if 24 hours is enough lead time to be helpful.
> 
> My concern here is that we have standing items of priority tasks
> updates that are essentially always there, and action item follow-up
> from the prior meeting.  Personally I often find them very useful.
[...]

Back when I was chairing these meetings regularly, I urged
participants to add info within each priority effort (or added some
myself) in advance of the meeting. If there was nothing called out
in our agenda under a given priority effort entry, I skipped over
it. Going back to something like that could help us figure out when
a meeting is warranted rather than ending up as a series of "nothing
new here" comments.

But this aside, I think the frequency with which we'd end up
skipping meetings (based on history of our agenda updates) will be
low enough that we shouldn't really focus on that part of the
proposal. I agree what's important is having our agenda nailed down
in advance so people can decide whether or not it's important for
them to attend. We do sometimes skip meetings for various reasons
anyway, so rarely announcing we won't hold one because nobody has
any updates or topics on the agenda feels like an incentive for
people to find relevant topics so that doesn't happen often.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/attachments/20181120/998d3803/attachment.sig>