Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Flavio Percoco]

On 07/12/16 14:29 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Dolph Mathews wrote:

[...]
I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
majority of projects that don't hold primetime meeting slots.

While I don't think we should do away with meetings rooms, if a project
wants to hold meetings at a convenient time in their normal channel, I
think that's fine. Meeting conflicts will always exist. Major conflicts
will be resolved without the additional pressure of artificial scarcity.


I tend to agree with that. Like I said in my intro, we may be past the
point where the artificial scarcity model is hurting us more than it
helps us.

So how about:
- we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
- we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
to (and show them all on the meeting agenda through the irc-meetings
repo) as long as the channel is logged
- we still generally recommend to use meeting rooms whenever possible,
so that you can benefit from outside presence and easy mentions/pings
- we will proactively add additional meeting rooms when the resource
becomes scarce again

Options:
- Once the change is in place, we could also limit official meeting room
usage to official projects (since non-official projects can hold a
meeting in their own room and still have it mentioned on the agenda)
- If we remove artificial scarcity, we could discontinue the
#openstack-meeting-cp channel (which was created to facilitate the
scheduling of  cross-project temporary meetings) and just tell
cross-project initiatives to use the regular channels

Comments, thoughts ?


All the above sounds good although, I'm honestly starting to consider that we
should just encourage meetings to be held in channels and use `#openstack-dev`
for quick pings and invites.

I normally lurk in several meeting channels and although I am indeed pingged
sometimes, I feel like the same could be achieved by just pinging me on
#openstack-dev

We can still list these meetings in a central repo. One downside that I see is
that the chance for overlaps is higher, which may be a problem for folks that
participate in several meetings.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-12-02 11:35:05 +0100:

> 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.

I lurk in the meeting rooms to respond to questions about releases,
reno, and a couple of the oslo modules. I would prefer to just hang out
in #openstack-release and #openstack-oslo and have folks come there if
they have those questions, though.

Doug

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[John Villalovos]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> There was a thread in the past discussing renaming -alt to -2 but it
> concluded that it was not worth the hassle (losing the 489 people
> hanging there).
>

I was thinking maybe #openstack-meeting-alt could be dedicated in the
future to "ALTernating" meetings. Just a random thought :)
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Thierry Carrez]

John Villalovos wrote:
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling
> pressure
> 
> 
> Any reason it isn't #openstack-meeting-2 ?
> 
> The -2 channel is owned by openstackinfra.

Currently we have:
 #openstack-meeting
 #openstack-meeting-alt
 #openstack-meeting-3
 #openstack-meeting-4

There was a thread in the past discussing renaming -alt to -2 but it
concluded that it was not worth the hassle (losing the 489 people
hanging there).

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[John Villalovos]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling
> pressure
>

Any reason it isn't #openstack-meeting-2 ?

The -2 channel is owned by openstackinfra.
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Thierry Carrez]

Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:29:03PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> So how about:
>> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
>> - we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
>> to (and show them all on the meeting agenda through the irc-meetings
>> repo) as long as the channel is logged
>> - we still generally recommend to use meeting rooms whenever possible,
>> so that you can benefit from outside presence and easy mentions/pings
>> - we will proactively add additional meeting rooms when the resource
>> becomes scarce again
> 
> Sounds like a good plan to me.

First step:
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:enable-meeting-5

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2016-12-07 12:14:06 -0600 (-0600), Ian Cordasco wrote:
[...]
> So I'm all for non-official projects using their own channels for
> meetings. My only wish (as someone working on a non-official
> project) would be that we could use meeting bot the same way we
> would in a meeting channel.

It's the same actual bot instance that's also logging your channel
conversations (if you have channel logging to
eavesdrop.openstack.org), the only difference is that in meeting
channels we grant it the mode necessary to be able to change channel
topics. It will even work without that, you just don't get your
channel topic updated automagically during meetings. We can also
fairly easily control that access on a per-channel basis (we have a
separate accessbot which sets channel permissions for us so it's
just a matter of making a very small change to a data file in a Git
repo).

> If it requires standing up additional instances of the meeting
> bot, I think it's fair for the companies sponsoring those projects
> to help openstack-infra with that, and I'd be willing to throw my
> own time in there for that too if necessary.
[...]

It likely will soon regardless because Freenode doesn't let any user
join >120 channels at a time so we'll almost certainly need to shard
channels across multiple meetbot instances soon anyway. There's a
thread starting on the infra ML about hacking on meetbot in concert
with devs from the Fedora community too, which you might want to
jump in on:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/2016-December/004951.html

-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Ian Cordasco]

 

-Original Message-
From: Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: December 7, 2016 at 07:30:40
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

> Dolph Mathews wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
> > collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
> > with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
> > majority of projects that don't hold primetime meeting slots.
> >
> > While I don't think we should do away with meetings rooms, if a project
> > wants to hold meetings at a convenient time in their normal channel, I
> > think that's fine. Meeting conflicts will always exist. Major conflicts
> > will be resolved without the additional pressure of artificial scarcity.
>  
> I tend to agree with that. Like I said in my intro, we may be past the
> point where the artificial scarcity model is hurting us more than it
> helps us.
>  
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
> - we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
> to (and show them all on the meeting agenda through the irc-meetings
> repo) as long as the channel is logged
> - we still generally recommend to use meeting rooms whenever possible,
> so that you can benefit from outside presence and easy mentions/pings
> - we will proactively add additional meeting rooms when the resource
> becomes scarce again

So I'm all for non-official projects using their own channels for meetings. My 
only wish (as someone working on a non-official project) would be that we could 
use meeting bot the same way we would in a meeting channel. If it requires 
standing up additional instances of the meeting bot, I think it's fair for the 
companies sponsoring those projects to help openstack-infra with that, and I'd 
be willing to throw my own time in there for that too if necessary.

> Options:
> - Once the change is in place, we could also limit official meeting room
> usage to official projects (since non-official projects can hold a
> meeting in their own room and still have it mentioned on the agenda)
> - If we remove artificial scarcity, we could discontinue the
> #openstack-meeting-cp channel (which was created to facilitate the
> scheduling of cross-project temporary meetings) and just tell
> cross-project initiatives to use the regular channels

I think there's still value in #openstack-meeting-cp, but I don't feel strongly 
enough to argue against its removal.

--  
Ian Cordasco


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Sean McGinnis]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:29:03PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> 
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
> - we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
> to (and show them all on the meeting agenda through the irc-meetings
> repo) as long as the channel is logged
> - we still generally recommend to use meeting rooms whenever possible,
> so that you can benefit from outside presence and easy mentions/pings
> - we will proactively add additional meeting rooms when the resource
> becomes scarce again

Sounds like a good plan to me.

> 
> Options:
> - Once the change is in place, we could also limit official meeting room
> usage to official projects (since non-official projects can hold a
> meeting in their own room and still have it mentioned on the agenda)

+1

> - If we remove artificial scarcity, we could discontinue the
> #openstack-meeting-cp channel (which was created to facilitate the
> scheduling of  cross-project temporary meetings) and just tell
> cross-project initiatives to use the regular channels

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Thierry Carrez]

Dolph Mathews wrote:
> [...]
> I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
> collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
> with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
> majority of projects that don't hold primetime meeting slots.
> 
> While I don't think we should do away with meetings rooms, if a project
> wants to hold meetings at a convenient time in their normal channel, I
> think that's fine. Meeting conflicts will always exist. Major conflicts
> will be resolved without the additional pressure of artificial scarcity.

I tend to agree with that. Like I said in my intro, we may be past the
point where the artificial scarcity model is hurting us more than it
helps us.

So how about:
- we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
- we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
to (and show them all on the meeting agenda through the irc-meetings
repo) as long as the channel is logged
- we still generally recommend to use meeting rooms whenever possible,
so that you can benefit from outside presence and easy mentions/pings
- we will proactively add additional meeting rooms when the resource
becomes scarce again

Options:
- Once the change is in place, we could also limit official meeting room
usage to official projects (since non-official projects can hold a
meeting in their own room and still have it mentioned on the agenda)
- If we remove artificial scarcity, we could discontinue the
#openstack-meeting-cp channel (which was created to facilitate the
scheduling of  cross-project temporary meetings) and just tell
cross-project initiatives to use the regular channels

Comments, thoughts ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Dariusz Śmigiel]

2016-12-05 12:51 GMT-06:00 Paul Belanger :
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:15AM +0100, Luigi Toscano wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> > But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
>> > really need to be in a separate -alt room for those when we have the
>> > channel and anyone that cares about stable enough to be in the meeting
>> > is already in that channel, but sometimes the people in that channel
>> > forget about the meeting or which of the 20 alt rooms it's being held
>> > in, so they miss it (or Tony is biking down a volcano and we just don't
>> > have a meeting).
>>
>> This is just part of the problem, but couldn't the bot remind about the
>> meeting before its start on the main channel of a project? It would help with
>> people forgetting about the meetings.
>>
> I'm glad I am not the only one who has wanted this. Always thought it would 
> be a
> nice feature to have one of our bot remind me, PM would work, about coming
> events.
>
> This could be fixed if I could figure out have to run a calendar notifications
> via console.
>

Oslo community has working tool for that purpose [1]. Probably it
could be used during other meetings.

Although, if someone is interested in particular Meeting, probably
will be able to have some kind of reminder: calendar, console one
(sent by fungi in other thread[2]).

I've seen couple flash meetings in different #openstack-{project}
channels, so I think, instead of creating new separated channel,
better would be just to have meeting activity in the {project} one.


[1] https://github.com/openstack/oslo.tools/blob/master/ping_me.py
[2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-December/108470.html

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Paul Belanger]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:15AM +0100, Luigi Toscano wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
> > really need to be in a separate -alt room for those when we have the
> > channel and anyone that cares about stable enough to be in the meeting
> > is already in that channel, but sometimes the people in that channel
> > forget about the meeting or which of the 20 alt rooms it's being held
> > in, so they miss it (or Tony is biking down a volcano and we just don't
> > have a meeting).
> 
> This is just part of the problem, but couldn't the bot remind about the 
> meeting before its start on the main channel of a project? It would help with 
> people forgetting about the meetings.
> 
I'm glad I am not the only one who has wanted this. Always thought it would be a
nice feature to have one of our bot remind me, PM would work, about coming
events.

This could be fixed if I could figure out have to run a calendar notifications
via console.

> -- 
> Luigi
> 
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Dolph Mathews]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 8:49 PM Tony Breeds  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  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
>
> > - 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.
>

I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
majority of projects that don't hold primetime meeting slots.

While I don't think we should do away with meetings rooms, if a project
wants to hold meetings at a convenient time in their normal channel, I
think that's fine. Meeting conflicts will always exist. Major conflicts
will be resolved without the additional pressure of artificial scarcity.


>
> 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
>
-- 
-Dolph
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2016-12-05 08:43:38 +0100 (+0100), Andreas Jaeger wrote:
[...]
> Accessbot is just permissions - this is not relevant.
[...]

To clarify, our accessbot never joins any channels at all. It only
connects to the server and interacts with ChanServ to configure
permissions for the channels listed. Thus, it is not impacted by
Freenode's CHANLIMIT setting.

Our meetbot on the other hand is, as mentioned, near the 120 channel
limit already because it's also the bot that handles general channel
logging to eavesdrop.openstack.org. An interested party could try
making http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/puppet-meetbot
support configuring and running an arbitrary number of meetbots
simultaneously to allow us to (at least manually) shard the service
across channels.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Luigi Toscano]

On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
> But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
> really need to be in a separate -alt room for those when we have the
> channel and anyone that cares about stable enough to be in the meeting
> is already in that channel, but sometimes the people in that channel
> forget about the meeting or which of the 20 alt rooms it's being held
> in, so they miss it (or Tony is biking down a volcano and we just don't
> have a meeting).

This is just part of the problem, but couldn't the bot remind about the 
meeting before its start on the main channel of a project? It would help with 
people forgetting about the meetings.

-- 
Luigi

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Andreas Jaeger]

On 2016-12-05 05:18, Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That's clearly something the infra team will need to advise on.  I wasn't 
> aware
> of a hardlimit in meetbot.  A quick grep:

Any user - including a bot - can only join up to 128 channels.

For gerritbot, Jim Blair recently used a LRU list to handle more
channels which means signing off and on from less frequrently used ones.

> balder:project-config $ grep 'name:' accessbot/channels.yaml  | wc -l
> 167

Accessbot is just permissions - this is not relevant. Meetbot is in
system-config and we're at 112 channels (see common/hiera.yaml) - so not
much more space.

> Seems to indicate we have logging on 167 channels, 5-6 have full meetbot
> acess/privs

Accessbot does not setup logging,

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
   HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Shamail]

> On Dec 4, 2016, at 11:18 PM, Tony Breeds  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> That's clearly something the infra team will need to advise on.  I wasn't 
> aware
> of a hardlimit in meetbot.  A quick grep:
> 
> balder:project-config $ grep 'name:' accessbot/channels.yaml  | wc -l
> 167
> 
> Seems to indicate we have logging on 167 channels, 5-6 have full meetbot
> acess/privs
Sorry, I think it's safe to ignore my message if we end up using Project rooms 
for meetings.  I looked through my change history and it was gerritbot that I 
had run into challenges with.  That is not impacted by the proposed changes to 
existing room.  If we add new rooms then OpenStack-infra might need to let us 
know whether we can deploy gerritbot to the new channels.
> 
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Tony Breeds]

On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:

> 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.

That's clearly something the infra team will need to advise on.  I wasn't aware
of a hardlimit in meetbot.  A quick grep:

balder:project-config $ grep 'name:' accessbot/channels.yaml  | wc -l
167

Seems to indicate we have logging on 167 channels, 5-6 have full meetbot
acess/privs

Yours Tony.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Shamail]

> On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Tony Breeds  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  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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Tony Breeds]

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  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

> - 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.

Yours Tony.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Thierry,

I personally prefer the meeting rooms as they are; however, we do need more of 
them.  I am often pinged in various other meetings in the common meeting 
channels and find the group communication that happens in this way preferable 
to joining each specific project channel.  Joining each specific project 
channel just to be pinged when desired during a project meeting introduces 
significant cognitive overhead for me.

I don’t know how others feel.

I’d be in favor of increasing the meeting rooms to enable the worldwide 
membership of OpenStack to better communicate as groups rather than silos and 
managing the meeting channels proactively.

Regards
-steve


-Original Message-
From: Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>
Organization: OpenStack
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Friday, December 2, 2016 at 3:35 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

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:
- is it time for us to add #openstack-meeting-5 ?
- should we more proactively add meeting channels in the future ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Matt Riedemann]

On 12/2/2016 8:38 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:

Thierry, when we were adding the #openstack-swg group, we had this
conversation and I observed that my own preference would be for a project's
meetings to be in that projects room. It makes it easier to then search for
logs for something (say SWG related) in the SWG room, and I do this
regularly for Trove but I have to store text logs of the trove meetings (in
#openstack-meeting-alt) with the logs of the trove room #openstack-trove.

While I understand the simplicity of just hanging around in four or five
conference rooms and being available for pings I submit to you that if
someone wants to ping you and you are not in that projects room, they know
where to go find you if you are a person who hangs around.

So I submit to you that rather than creating #openstack-meeting-5, let's
outlaw the meeting rooms altogether and allow projects to meet in their own
rooms. And people who are interested in projects can hang out in those rooms
(which people do quite a bit anyway), and others who just hangout in
#openstack or #openstack-dev or #openstack-infra.

-amrith



I tend to agree with Amrith here. If there are smaller projects/teams, 
then I'm not sure why they can't just have a meeting in their channel, 
unless it's an issue for the meeting bot?


But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't 
really need to be in a separate -alt room for those when we have the 
channel and anyone that cares about stable enough to be in the meeting 
is already in that channel, but sometimes the people in that channel 
forget about the meeting or which of the 20 alt rooms it's being held 
in, so they miss it (or Tony is biking down a volcano and we just don't 
have a meeting).


I'm only lurking in #openstack-meeting because of a rare ping, or 
mention, and I *MUST* be present to defend my honor, else I wouldn't be 
in there.


--

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2016-12-02 11:35:05 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> 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.
[...]

As someone who frequently gets pinged in random teams' meetings as
well as attending many regularly over the course of a week, I find
having them spread out as much as possible to be helpful to me, at
least. If everyone pings me at the same time because they're all
holding meetings in conflicting timeslots in many channels, I'll
probably just have to start scheduling "office hours" instead and
telling people to arrange any in-meeting input from me well in
advance.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Amrith Kumar]

Thierry, when we were adding the #openstack-swg group, we had this
conversation and I observed that my own preference would be for a project's
meetings to be in that projects room. It makes it easier to then search for
logs for something (say SWG related) in the SWG room, and I do this
regularly for Trove but I have to store text logs of the trove meetings (in
#openstack-meeting-alt) with the logs of the trove room #openstack-trove.

While I understand the simplicity of just hanging around in four or five
conference rooms and being available for pings I submit to you that if
someone wants to ping you and you are not in that projects room, they know
where to go find you if you are a person who hangs around.

So I submit to you that rather than creating #openstack-meeting-5, let's
outlaw the meeting rooms altogether and allow projects to meet in their own
rooms. And people who are interested in projects can hang out in those rooms
(which people do quite a bit anyway), and others who just hangout in
#openstack or #openstack-dev or #openstack-infra.

-amrith

> -Original Message-
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 7:52 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?
> 
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > Do we have any real data on just how many contributors really do lurk
> > in the meeting rooms permanently, as opposed to merely joining rooms
> > at start of the meeting & leaving immediately thereafter ?
> 
> There are currently 488 permanent residents on #openstack-meeting, 270 on
> #openstack-meeting-4 (while no meeting is going on). So I'd say that most
> people stay around permanently.
> 
> > Likewise any data on how many contributors are actively participate in
> > meetings across different projects, vs silod just in their own one
> > project ?
> 
> That is harder to get numbers on.
> 
> > If the latter is in the clear majority, then you might as well just
> > have #openstack-meeting-$PROJECT and thus mostly avoid the problem of
> > conflicting demands for a limited set of channels.
> 
> Since there are between 300 and 500 people who find it interesting to lurk
in
> meeting channels, I'm pretty sure that would be a bad choice...
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> __
> 
> 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


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Thierry Carrez]

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Do we have any real data on just how many contributors really do
> lurk in the meeting rooms permanently, as opposed to merely joining
> rooms at start of the meeting & leaving immediately thereafter ?

There are currently 488 permanent residents on #openstack-meeting, 270
on #openstack-meeting-4 (while no meeting is going on). So I'd say that
most people stay around permanently.

> Likewise any data on how many contributors are actively participate
> in meetings across different projects, vs silod just in their own
> one project ?

That is harder to get numbers on.

> If the latter is in the clear majority, then you might as well just
> have #openstack-meeting-$PROJECT and thus mostly avoid the problem
> of conflicting demands for a limited set of channels.

Since there are between 300 and 500 people who find it interesting to
lurk in meeting channels, I'm pretty sure that would be a bad choice...

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Daniel P. Berrange]

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:
> - is it time for us to add #openstack-meeting-5 ?
> - should we more proactively add meeting channels in the future ?

Do we have any real data on just how many contributors really do
lurk in the meeting rooms permanently, as opposed to merely joining
rooms at start of the meeting & leaving immediately thereafter ?

Likewise any data on how many contributors are actively participate
in meetings across different projects, vs silod just in their own
one project ?

If the latter is in the clear majority, then you might as well just
have #openstack-meeting-$PROJECT and thus mostly avoid the problem
of conflicting demands for a limited set of channels.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|

__
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-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?

[Thierry Carrez]

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:
- is it time for us to add #openstack-meeting-5 ?
- should we more proactively add meeting channels in the future ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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