On 2016-09-28 20:59:09 +0100 (+0100), Chris Dent wrote:
> Part of the point I was trying to make in the message to which gordc was
> responding is that whereas a git tree can allow someone to dig through
> and acquire details, a thing that is more like release notes[1] is far
> more human oriented and more likely to operate as a consumable digest of
> what has happened. Notably a git log will not reflect important
> conversations that did not result in a governance change nor activity
> that could have led to a governance change but was rejected. Certainly
> where a community says "no" is just as important as where it says "yes"?
> Further, merged changes are changes that have already been decided. We
> need more engagement, more broadly, while decisions are being
> considered. That means being more verbose, sooner.

As was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the TC has been trying
to do something along these lines at
but even with a dedicated communication subteam (see the May 13,
2015 entry) attempting to summarize important decisions, it's often
a struggle to determine which items are important enough to include
in a periodic high-level summary and which are administrivia better
left buried in meeting minutes and review comments. All in all I
think Anne and Flavio have done an awesome job with it.

Also, as you say, this mostly just covers decisions made and
discussions concluded rather than bringing attention to upcoming
topics or those for which deliberation was arrested pending
subsequent input. It's probably not the answer you're looking for,
but https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee and
are remarkably effective to that end.
Jeremy Stanley

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to