Also, if something comes up for discussion regularly / predictably, that indicates to me that we have a lack of consensus, and/or lack of structured decision making. Both easily fixable.
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > On Apr 24, 2013, at 16:58 , Noah Slater <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Well, I don't like the idea of alternating times. I think it will become > > confusing and hard to plan for, and I think we will see less > participation > > as a result. I also think that meetings held at 13:00 UTC will have very > > few participants. This becomes a problem when the meeting is important > > because of its proximity to another event (such as a release) because we > > have a bunch of people in the US that cannot possibly be expected to > attend > > at that time. > > > > The current situation is: > > > > Meeting at 20:00 UTC, the optimal amount of people are able to > participate. > > > > We're proposing: > > > > Meeting occasionally at 20:00 UTC and occasionally at 13:00 UTC. Many > > people unable to participate half the time. Meeting times become > irregular > > and hard to plan for in general. > > The status-quo is actually that we alternate 14:00 UTC and 20:00 UTC on a > weekly > basis. It is predictable and easy to plan. In practice this only has > happened > twice. I don’t understand why we stick to what was agreed to in the past > and > instead discuss this every month or so without actually giving the plan a > shot. > > Jan > -- > > > > > > > > > This is a sub-optimal solution. > > > > What is the problem we are trying to solve? > > > > I don't think it's "how can we organise an IRC meeting so that everyone > can > > attend?" (That pre-supposes the solution.) > > > > I think it is more like "how do we get input from everyone?" > > > > I think another avenue for us to explore might be to consider that when > we > > post the minutes to the list, that's not the end of the conversation. > > > > There are two points at which you can contribute to the meeting, without > > actually being there: > > > > 1) In reply to the meeting reminder. We have invited this every time, but > > only a few people so far have actually added things to the agenda via > this > > method. I would suggest that if people can't make the 20:00 UTC time, but > > they have something they want to add to the agenda, or they have some > > information to share with the group (like a status update), then they > post > > it at this point. > > > > 2) In reply to the minutes. As we saw with the action item Benoit brought > > up a week or so ago, I jumped right in, and started having a discussion > > about it on the mailing list. I had missed that particular meeting, but > > read the minutes, and started a discussion. > > > > In my mind, this should be sufficient to ensure that everybody can input > > into the meetings. > > > > Perhaps the 20:00 UTC time is not the most optimal solution. (i.e. The > time > > when most people in the project can participate.) I note that the board > > meets at 17:30 UTC. I think that's a valid question, and one we > > should examine if it looks like there might be a better time. But I > believe > > that we should pick one, single optimal time for everybody, and then work > > on ways to ensure that people who miss the meeting (either because of > life > > getting in the way, or timezones) can contribute without impediment. > > > > > > On 24 April 2013 15:14, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> On 24 April 2013 16:02, Noah Slater <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > wrote: > >>> What about having two meetings? > >> > >> Hi Noah, > >> > >> We previously said we would alternate times "regularly" but I think > >> we've only done that twice. For all the obvious reasons I'd prefer not > >> to double up. What's the constraint? > >> > >> A+ > >> Dave > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > NS > > -- NS
