On 5/16/16 4:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Sat, May 14 2016, Nikhil Komawar wrote: > >> I think people prefer to use ML a lot and I am not a great fan of the >> same. It is a multi-cast way of communication and it has assumptions >> around time, space, intent of the audience & intent to actually read >> them. Same is for gerrit/etherpad. > It's asynchronous, that's why people tend to prefer it. You can deal > with it when it's the most appropriate for you.
Agreed :-) I did not mention but the time scale I was thinking was months but still wanted to get a sense of what people think in general! > > > […] > >> Another step is to arrange/show-up in meetings, yes this is tedious but >> extremely vital. This is the place where you can actually determine if >> the convergence factor is more or less. I find that a lot of people take >> meetings lightly and their approach isn't establishing a deterministic >> behavior in the team. Many times, it becomes a disruptive behavior and >> the convergence decreases significantly. > OTOH meetings are terrible as they put a lot of constraints on people > that want to participate but are unable to. Not good for an open > community. > > However, that has the upside of forcing people to make sacrifices if > they *really* want to participate in a conversation, whereas, as you > stated, anyone can jump in a mailing-list thread and start bike-shed, > even if they don't really care. > > My experience is that it's still better to handle mailing list, and to > only deal with people you know might be interested in really helping, > and ignore the rest. Noted. I guess there's some tribal knowledge on the best practices. Some people take some comments too seriously and that's a issue if cores find it inconvenient. > >> Though, I think every team needs to be synchronous about their approach >> and not use delayed mechanisms like ML or gerrit. > That's rather the first symptoms of a dysfunctional team that is not > able to communicate properly. So you need to force people to be on the > same team so they *really* communicate without other choices. All good points in a list. > >> * Also, one very important thing that I keep hearing: "I do not like >> that" without any other information, as an argument to disregard >> technical proposals. I think it is very disruptive and irrational way to >> express arguments. We are not buying flowers in OpenStack, we need to >> keep rationality in check when we express our opinions. It reduces >> convergence factor and increases dubiety among the developers & >> reviewers. Then we have a ecosystem where people do not understand why >> we do things the way we do it. We should not stop businesses just >> because someone doesn't like something, please no. Lack of rationale can >> actually do that. > Agreed, I encounter(ed) a lot of those "don't like" comments. If it's > not from core reviewers, people should learn to ignore those -1, and if > it's core reviewers… you better fix the core reviewers. ;-) Haha, nice one -- fix the cores ;-) > > My 2c, Appreciate the feedback! > > Cheers, -- Thanks, Nikhil __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
