On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote:
> I don’t think it ninja merged. It had plenty of reviews, and was open > during international hours. I don’t have any issue there. > > I don’t like the crazy early meeting, so I set out to prove it didn’t > matter: > > Average attendance before rotating: 20.7 people > Average attendance on Monday afternoons (U.S. time): 20.9 > Average attendance on Tuesday morning (U.S. time): 23.7 > > Stupid data, that’s not what I wanted to see. > > I haven’t yet correlated people to which meeting time yet, but attendance > was slightly up during the crazy early hated time, across the 1.25 years it > was running (started 9/9/14). This is just people saying something; lurkers > can just read the logs. > > Data is from eavesdrop meeting logs, if anyone else wants to crunch it. > > Since it's ridiculous to assume people are required to attend this meeting, one easy solution to this would be to go back to the rotating meeting and have a different chair for the Tuesday morning PST meeting. I think rotating chairs for this meeting would be a good idea for a multitude of reasons (spreads the pain, lets others have a chance at the pulpit, grooms future meeting leaders, etc.). Thanks, Kyle > Thanks, > doug > > > > On Jan 12, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Tony Breeds <t...@bakeyournoodle.com> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:27:30PM +0100, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > >> Agreed with Gary on behalf of my European compatriots. (Note that I > >> *personally* +1’d the patch because I don’t mind, doing late hours > anyway; > >> but it’s sad it was ninja merged without giving any chance for those > from > >> affected timezones to express their concerns). > > > > So Ninja merged has a negative connotation that I refute. > > > > I merged it. It was judgment error, and I apologise for that. > > > > * I found and read through the list thread. > > * Saw only +1's yours included > > - known you'd be affected I used your +1 as a barometer > > > > My mistake was not noticing your request to leave the review open for > longer. > > > > I also noted in my review that reverting it is pretty low cost to back > it out > > if needed. > > > > I understand that the 'root cause' for this change was the yaml2ical > issue that > > stemmed from having 2 odd week in a row. We've fixed that [1]. I'm also > > working a a more human concept of biweekly meeting in yaml2ical. > > > > Tony > > [1] the next time it could have been a problem is 2020/2021 ;P > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
