On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Jay Dobies <[email protected]> wrote:
> As an example of something that I think doesn't add much value in the >>> meeting - DerekH has already been giving semi-regular CI/CD status >>> reports via email. I'd like to make these weekly update emails >>> regular, and take the update off the meeting agenda. I'm offering to >>> share the load with him to make this easier to achieve. >>> >> > The Tuskar item is the same way. Not sure how that was added as an > explicit agenda item, but I don't see why we'd call out to one particular > project within TripleO. Anything we'd need eyes on should be covered when > we chime in about specs or reviews needing eyes. > > Are there other things on our regular agenda that you feel aren't >>> offering much value? >>> >> >> I'd propose we axe the regular agenda entirely and let people promote >> things in open discussion if they need to. In fact the regular agenda >> often seems like a bunch of motions we go through... to the extent that >> while the TripleO meeting was going on we've actually discussed what was >> in my opinion the most important things in the normal #tripleo IRC >> channel. Is getting through our review stats really that important!? >> > > I think the review stats would be better handled in e-mail format like > Derek's CI status e-mails. We don't want the reviews to get out of hand, > but the time spent pasting in the links and everyone looking at the stats > during the meeting itself are wasteful. I could see bringing it up if it's > becoming a problem, but the number crunching doesn't need to be part of the > meeting. I agree; I think it's useful to make sure we keep on top of the stats, but I don't think it needs to be done in the meeting. > > > Are there things you'd like to see moved onto, or off, the agenda? >>> >> >> Perhaps a streamlined agenda like this would work better: >> >> * Bugs >> > > This one is valuable and I like the idea of keeping it. > > * Projects needing releases >> > > Is this even needed as well? It feels like for months now the answer is > always "Yes, release the world". > But the next question is: "Who is going to release the world?" and that is usually a volunteer from the meeting. Perhaps if we had a regular release team this could be arranged outside of the meeting. > > I think our cadence on those release can be slowed down as well (the last > few releases I've done have had minimal churn at best), but I'm not trying > to thread jack into that discussion. I bring it up because we could remove > that from the meeting and do an entirely new model where we get the release > volunteer through other means on a (potentially) less frequent release > basis. > > * Open Discussion (including important SPECs, CI, or anything needing >> attention). ** Leader might have to drive this ** >> > > I like the idea of a specific Specs/Reviews section. It should be quick, > but a specific point in time where people can #info a review they need eyes > on. I think it appeals to my OCD to have this more structured than > interspersed with other topics in open discussion. One issue I have with these is that I don't know if they get seen by people who aren't at the meeting. Perhaps a weekly email pointing to the minutes and hilighing these would help? > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
