On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:46 PM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Synchronous meetings are done by the board of directors monthly,
As well as by infrastructure, conferences, fundraising, ... > and we > publish the minutes of those meetings regularly. Similarly in the Outreachy > meetings, we’ve been recording and publishing minutes. I consider both > meetings to be particularly useful for finalizing decisions that involve > two or more people (board for resolutions, smaller meetings for informal > equivalents). > > To make both compatible as possible with the Apache Way, the date and times > are scheduled ahead of time and are generally open to anyone who wants to > attend Good advice for PMCs, but not a hard requirement for other committees. In fact, we have ample examples where such is an anti-pattern, particularly when meeting with external companies. If you would like to discuss this further, I'd suggest [email protected]. > or get clarity on something in real time. Publishing minutes after > meetings as well as using mailing lists for the asynchronous aspects of the > group seems to strike a careful balance. I’d expect other synchronous > meetings at Apache (regardless of which committee(s) it involves) to be > done similarly. I wouldn’t expect formal minutes like we publish for the > board, but making public notes about what was discussed makes the meetings > accessible to those who either can’t attend synchronously or those with > accessibility issues. - Sam Ruby > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 14:26, Katia Rojas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > "the meetings will be just to provide a time to work on things" > > > > Synchronous meetings are an additional channel. I think that it worked well > > with the Outreachy program and not all of the members attended the video > > calls. At the end of the meeting we provided access to the meeting notes, > > to make it transparent; and to make it possible for people to contribute on > > the discussed topics async :) > > > > Katia > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:33 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I've encountered this question many times, in projects I contribute to > > and > > > mentor. > > > > > > My current (evolving) take on this is that the mailing list needs to be > > an > > > authoritative and descriptive record of the project. A lurker should know > > > what is going on by subscribing. A newcomer should be able to catch up by > > > reading archives. For any decision, someone should have their voice > > heard - > > > a chance to have a different opinion and change the course of the > > project - > > > via only the email list. You can achieve all of that and still have > > > off-list working meetings. > > > > > > The key is in just what Gris said: "the meetings will be just to provide > > a > > > time to work on things". I would guess that almost every active Apache > > > project has people working off-list in person having many meetings and > > > calls. But the list is what drives the project. > > > > > > This is all talking about normal project PMCs. I'm not sure if this all > > > applies to an operational arm of ASF. > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:31 AM Griselda Cuevas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It can, and that will be the preferred way. I'm not going against the > > > > Apache Way, I'm providing additional channels to move the project > > forward > > > > making it as transparent and collaborative as possible. > > > > > > > > I will also hold these meetings as we have done with the Outreach work, > > > > which has proven to be going well. > > > > > > > > Again, the meetings will be just to provide a time to work on things > > that > > > > are needed and email can't facilitate. No need for everyone to attend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 23:30, Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/2019 9:08 AM, Gris Cuevas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Justin, > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetings are not mandatory and there is not a need for them yet. > > The > > > > > > time selection is so the Bitergia team has a block of time where > > > they > > > > > > know they can have a hold of someone in our working group > > > > > > predictably. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we are under a contract with Bitergia, milestones need to be > > > > > > achieved/met in a timely manner and meetings can provide a way to > > > > > > unblock things and progress in a constant rhythm. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do want to give a time where you could make it in case it's > > > needed, > > > > > > could you propose 2 days of the week and times that will work for > > > > > > you? I will add this to the Doodle. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime, let's continue work through mail, Jira and > > > > > > Confluence. I already briefed the Bitergia team in these channels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is one way in which ASF has been so successful at D&I that it > > is > > > > > hardly noticed. People can fully participate regardless of time zone, > > > > > shift, whether one does ASF activities on the job or during leisure > > > > > time, and time-based responsibilities. > > > > > > > > > > Given people scattered around the world, and with different life > > > > > circumstances, finding a meeting time that is convenient for everyone > > > is > > > > > practically impossible. > > > > > > > > > > Instead, ASF tries to avoid doing things synchronously. Can't keeping > > > > > track of milestones, progress, and barriers to progress be done by > > > > > e-mail, rather than a synchronous meeting? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
