Le 05/02/2015 17:54, Sean Dague a écrit :
On 02/05/2015 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:42:48AM -0600, Ed Leafe wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/05/2015 09:02 AM, Alexis Lee wrote:
May I suggest stricter moderation? EG a short phase to propose
items, then work through them 1 by 1. Or, we take items one by one
according to who shouts fastest but ask people not to interrupt.
Or how about going through the ones listed on the agenda, rather than
having a free-for-all shouting match?
Indeed, I thought that was the whole point of putting them in the
agenda in the first place :-)
Agreed, I think it just got away from us today with lots of first time
attendees. We'll just have to be a little clearer next time.
-Sean
I was always considering stuck reviews as reviews where 2 or more cores
were disagreeing between themselves so that it was needing a debate
discussion during the meeting.
If we're only saying that 'stuck' means a review which hasn't been
reviewed since a certain amount of time, then we will be having lots of
people jumping in to ask for a review, so it would be counterproductive.
-Sylvain
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
