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
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev