On 12/04/17 11:07 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Ildiko Vancsa wrote:
On 2017. Apr 12., at 3:18, Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com
<mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wrote:
Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and
for replies to do the same. Some of us are loquatious and I imagine
can be hard to follow even with time to read.

IRC allows someone to respond quickly, and for someone to be like "yo,
totes sorry, I didn't mean that at all LOL" and to walk things back
before a pile of people become mortally insulted.

Like now - hopefully you'll give me a smiley in IRC ... but you might
not, and I'm stuck worrying that my tone came across wrong. Then if
you just don't respond because ZOMG-EMAIL, I might start day drinking.

Big +1 on balance.

I agree in general that we need to revisit how to be more inclusive and
how to provide as equal conditions to people all around the globe as

That said I still would like to keep the ability to have allocated time
for synchronous communication and allow the TC to be more of a team as
opposed to a group of people driving their own and some shared missions.
I think it helps with seeing maybe different parts but still the same
big picture and making the group more efficient with decision making and
bringing the community forward.

Agree with you Ildiko and Monty, we still need sync communication to get
a better feel of everyone's feelings on a particular issue, especially
on complex issues. At the same time, a unique weekly meeting is actively
preventing people from participating. It is also very active and noisy,
the timebox can be painful, and its weekly cadence makes a good reason
for procrastinating in reviews until the topic is raised in meeting,
where final decision is made. Creating multiple official meetings
spreads the pain instead of eliminating it. It makes it easier for more
people to join, but more difficult for any given member to participate
to every meeting. Our ability to quickly process changes might be affected.

One idea I've been considering is eliminating the one and only sacred
one-hour weekly TC meeting, and encouraging ad-hoc discussions (on
#openstack-dev for example) between change proposers and smaller groups
of TC members present in the same timezone. That would give us a good
feel of what everyone thinks, reduce noise, and happen at various times
during the day on a public forum, giving an opportunity for more people
to jump in the discussion. The informal nature of those discussions
would make the governance reviews the clear focal point for coordination
and final decision.

It's clearly not the perfect silver bullet though, so I'd very much like
to hear other ideas :)

I believe I shared this with you on one of our conversations over dinner one
night. I'm glad to see you're more convinced now. I've talked about this with
you and other folks among the TC and I'm growing more convinced that it's the
right thing to do.

I've toyed with this idea for a bit already and I also mentioned it in my reply
to Matt[0] yesterday. As I mentioned in my email, I believe most can be achieved
on gerrit and we can instead focus on having a better way for ad-hoc
conversations and mentoring of people that need support from the TC.

[0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115255.html


Flavio Percoco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to