> On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Tony Breeds <t...@bakeyournoodle.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:35:05AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> There has been a bit of tension lately around creating IRC meetings. >> I've been busy[1] cleaning up unused slots and defragmenting biweekly >> ones to open up possibilities, but truth is, even with those changes >> approved, there will still be a number of time slots that are full: >> >> Tuesday 14utc -- only biweekly available >> Tuesday 16utc -- full >> Wednesday 15utc -- only biweekly available >> Wednesday 16utc -- full >> Thursday 14utc -- only biweekly available >> Thursday 17utc -- only biweekly available >> >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:dec2016-cleanup >> >> Historically, we maintained a limited number of meeting rooms in order >> to encourage teams to spread around and limit conflicts. This worked for >> a time, but those days I feel like team members don't have that much >> flexibility in picking a time that works for everyone. If the miracle >> slot that works for everyone is not available on the calendar, they tend >> to move the meeting elsewhere (private IRC channel, Slack, Hangouts) >> rather than change time to use a less-busy slot. >> >> So I'm now wondering how much that artificial scarcity policy is hurting >> us more than it helps us. I'm still convinced it's very valuable to have >> a number of "meetings rooms" that you can lurk in and be available for >> pings, without having to join hundreds of channels where meetings might >> happen. But I'm not sure anymore that maintaining an artificial scarcity >> is helpful in limiting conflicts, and I can definitely see that it >> pushes some meetings away from the meeting channels, defeating their >> main purpose. >> >> TL;DR: > > Shouldn't this have been the headline ;P > >> - is it time for us to add #openstack-meeting-5 ? > > 13:38 <tonyb> info #openstack-meeting-5 > 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- Information on #openstack-meeting-5: > 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- Founder : Magni, openstackinfra > 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- Successor : freenode-staff > 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- Registered : Nov 27 20:02:51 2015 (1y 1w > 1d ago) > 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- Mode lock : +ntc-slk > 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- Flags : GUARD > 13:38 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- *** End of Info *** > > So if we're going to go down that path it's just a matter of the appropriate > changes in openstack-infra/{system,project}-config
I would be for adding at least 1-2 general meeting rooms. > >> - should we more proactively add meeting channels in the future ? > > In an attempt to get send the worlds most "on the fence" reply. I really like > the current structure, and I think it works well for the parts of the > community that > touch lots of projects. Having said that in my not very scientific opionion > that's a very small amount of the community. I think that most contributors > would benefit from moving the meetings into $project specific rooms as Amrith, > Matt and (kinda sorta) Daniel suggested. Do we know how many of the project level rooms currently have bots? I know I ran into an issue that one of the bots was at its maximum (128 rooms) and, therefore, I concerned about the infrastructure necessary to support too many new rooms if there is a new wave of changes to add bots. > > Yours Tony. > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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