On 08/14/2014 09:14 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 08:31:48AM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: >> On 08/13/2014 11:31 PM, Michael Still wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Just wanted to quickly weigh in with my thoughts on this important topic. I >>>> very much valued the face-to-face interaction that came from the mid-cycle >>>> meetup in Beaverton (it was the only one I've ever been to). >>>> >>>> That said, I do not believe it should be a requirement that cores make it >>>> to >>>> the face-to-face meetings in-person. A number of folks have brought up very >>>> valid concerns about personal/family time, travel costs and burnout. >>> >>> I'm not proposing they be a requirement. I am proposing that they be >>> strongly encouraged. >> >> I'm not sure that's much different in reality. >> >>>> I believe that the issue raised about furthering the divide between core >>>> and >>>> non-core folks is actually the biggest reason I don't support a mandate to >>>> have cores at the face-to-face meetings, and I think we should make our >>>> best >>>> efforts to support quality virtual meetings that can be done on a more >>>> frequent basis than the face-to-face meetings that would be optional. >>> >>> I am all for online meetings, but we don't have a practical way to do >>> them at the moment apart from IRC. Until someone has a concrete >>> proposal that's been shown to work, I feel its a straw man argument. >> >> Yes, IRC is one option which we already use on a regular basis. We can >> also switch to voice communication for higher bandwidth when needed. We >> even have a conferencing server set up in OpenStack's infrastructure: >> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Conferencing >> >> In theory it even supports basic video conferencing, though I haven't >> tested it on this server yet. > > Depending on the usage needs, I think Google hangouts is a quite useful > technology. For many-to-many session its limit of 10 participants can be > an issue, but for a few-to-many broadcast it could be practical. What I > find particularly appealing is the way it can live stream the session > over youtube which allows for unlimited number of viewers, as well as > being available offline for later catchup. > > It could be useful in cases where one (or a handful) of people want to > present an idea / topic visually with slides / screencasts / etc and > then let the broader interactive discussion take place on IRC / mailing > list afterwards. I could see this being something that might let people > present proposals for new Nova features without having to wait (+try for > a limited) design summit slot in the 6 month cycle. One of the issues > I feel with the design summit is that it was the first time hearing about > many of the ideas, so there was not enough time to disgest the proposal > and so some of the thorny things to discuss only come to mind afterwards. > If we had to a approach for promoting features & knowledge in this way the > design summit could have more time to focus on areas of debate where the > f2f prescence is most valuable.
Yeah, I really like google hangouts. I suspect more than 10 people may want the option to speak. We could have an IRC channel going as well for questions, so that might mitigate it. Another issue is that some folks are just fundamentally opposed to using Google ... but I think it's worth it for how good the service is. :-) -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev