On 11/21/2014 04:58 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>> +1 to involving the liaisons more directly
>>
>> -1 to the meeting size growing too large for productive real-time
>>    communication on IRC
>>
>> IME, there's a practical limit on the number of *active* participants
>> in an IRC meeting. Not sure what that magic threshold is, but I suspect
>> not much higher than 25.
> I really don't expect 25 people to actively discuss a given topic. It
> happened in the past in that meeting, in what I call "town hall"
> discussions, where the chair is generally after a wide range of feedback
> to get the temperature reading on a specific issue. But most "issues"
> raised usually crystallize into 4-8 active participants. Much like
> design summit sessions :)
>
>> So given that we're in an era of fretting about the scalability
>> challenges facing cross-project concerns, I'd hate to paint ourselves
>> into a corner with another cross-project scalability challenge.
>>
>> How about the agenda each week includes a specific invitation to a
>> subset of the liaisons, based on relevance?
>>
>> (e.g. the week there's a CI brownout, request all the QA liaisons attend;
>>  whereas the week that the docs team launch a new contribution workflow,
>>  request that all the docs liaisons are present).
>>
>> Possibly with a standing invite to the release-mgmt liaison (or PTL)?
> CPLs would be invited, but this is extremely optional to them (like it
> is for everyone else). It also reduces the need to attend for the PTL --
> they can ask one of their CPLs to represent the project on a particular
> issue. It's really not as if all PTLs were always showing up to that
> meeting anyway.
>
>> Of course, as you say, the meeting is otherwise open-as-open-can-be.
> Right, and I think that's the critical point -- we are not really
> changing the nature of the meeting here, we are just changing the
> messaging around it to make sure cross-project liaisons know they are
> welcome to participate and/or propose topics to discuss on the agenda.
> Vocal people were already participating, the new messaging is just
> reaching out to the shy ones.
>
> I think we can give it a try -- if we realize this ends up being
> non-productive or way too crowded, we can revisit. Let's iterate and
> fail fast.
>
Right, agreed. This has always been an open meeting. Now we're just
setting the tone that the primary mission for this Open Meeting is
OpenStack as a whole things, where existing comms channels aren't
sufficient to handle the situation in the narrow. I look forward to
there being a forum primarily about discussing and addressing those
larger issues, and hopefully making a place where we provide
opportunities for people that want to get involved in OpenStack as a
whole to know what the issues are and jump in to help.

    -Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to