Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Davanum Srinivas]

Seconding Doug's call.

On concrete suggestion from me is to give enough time ahead of the
video meeting so folks who are not able to participate can provide
their input via other medium for consideration during the meeting.
Folks will also be able to chime in about if the time would work or
not for them as well. Definitely please don't make such meetings as a
regular thing for sure.

Thanks,
Dims

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Doug Hellmann  wrote:
> Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-12-15 14:57:10 -0600:
>
>> I will defend this thing as something what we needed at the time.
>> Sometimes heated up video discussion helps to resolve
>> misunderstandings which otherwise could grow up and become conflicts
>> in community, which would be much worse.
>>
>> So please, let's not put artificial rules regarding our communication
>> just to be "inclusive". If there is a will to be inclusive, we can be
>> regardless of tool, if there is none, no tool will help. I will
>> advocate to allow whichever way community decides to work to that
>> community and focus on building culture of inclusiveness.
>>
>> If we have correct mindset, that's all that matters and I, for one, am
>> strong believer that Kolla community has been built on top of this
>> mindset, and we keep doing good job on following it.
>
> I think most people are agreeing that having video meeings sometimes
> is OK, as long as there is sufficient information published after
> the fact. The reason we log IRC channels and meetings is to establish
> a record that we can refer to when we miss meetings or need to
> refresh our memories of a decision. That just takes extra effort
> for meetings held in other ways.
>
> I am a bit concerned that you seem to be treating this discussion
> as hypothetical when it is not.  Many members of the community have
> explained to you why it is a problem in general, but a member of
> your team has brought you direct complaints about the way these
> meetings are being managed. This is from someone trusted enough to
> act as temporary PTL while you were unable to serve.
>
> Please re-read the original complaints and the suggestions for
> addressing them in this thread and consider what actions the Kolla
> team can take to improve in this area.
>
> 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



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ian Cordasco]

 

-Original Message-
From: Michał Jastrzębski <inc...@gmail.com>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: December 15, 2016 at 14:58:48
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

> Ok, let me reverse this discussion. We think hangouts are exclusive,
> and irc is not? I've seen multiple times when people were waaay into
> discussion, lines of text swarming the screen, somebody from outside
> speaks up, entirely reasonable and on topic thing, but is ignored
> because other actors in discussion were busy smashing keyboard to
> defend their mind? This person was unwillingly excluded from
> conversation and might feel bad enough to not speak up again. I've
> seen this happened. It happened to me on more than one occasion. That
> speak up thing might not be so easily ignored if actually spoken up in
> hangouts.

Michał, IRC has many faults. No communication medium is correct. What we're 
trying to discuss is not "all the ways in which OpenStack's agreed upon 
communication channels are wrong". Please, let's stay on topic.

> My point is, every communication channel has it's way to exclude
> people. Some people are intimidated to even speak up in public. Some
> people don't have money to travel to design summit. Saying that "we
> include everyone" is utopia. Best we can do is to try hard to be
> inclusive.

No one is saying "we include everyone". What we're saying is "we choose the 
best communication channels for the largest percentage of the community". 
Further, Kolla is choosing communication channels that aren't.

> I think having rules like "no ad hoc hangout meetings" will be
> extremely hurtful to communities. I am strong believer that different
> problems works better with different solutions, and that's true for
> communication too. Sometimes hot brainstorm-style ad hoc discussion is
> exactly what project need. Sometimes we need long, stretched
> discussion on ML, where everyone can speak up their mind in length.
>  
> Kolla community have always put inclusiveness as one of it's main
> values to uphold, that is reflected in our diversity in both core team
> and general community stats.
>  
> I did some digging and I think I know which particular hangout
> sprouted this whole discussion, so let me give you some context:
>  
> 1. This hangout ended 2 week long ongoing disagreement that we
> couldn't resolve on irc or spec. It took 1hr of us actually talking to
> each other to finally come to conclusion.
> 2. Most of kolla-k8s active team was there discussing
> 3. Besides kolla-k8s team we also had kubernetes community members who
> are much more used to this type of discussion (not irc, so some could
> argue that *this* was inclusive way to work between two opensource
> communities, finding common toolset to communicate).
> 4. Part of why we did it in such an unplanned manned (therefore some
> people interested weren't present at the time) is that this k8s
> community members happened to join us at that time and we wanted to
> make most of it.
> 5. At the end it helped us greatly to move past problems that stalled
> our development for weeks.
>  
> I will defend this thing as something what we needed at the time.
> Sometimes heated up video discussion helps to resolve
> misunderstandings which otherwise could grow up and become conflicts
> in community, which would be much worse.
>  
> So please, let's not put artificial rules regarding our communication
> just to be "inclusive". If there is a will to be inclusive, we can be
> regardless of tool, if there is none, no tool will help. I will
> advocate to allow whichever way community decides to work to that
> community and focus on building culture of inclusiveness.

These aren't artificial. Several members of the community (within and without 
Kolla) have come forth to tell you how unwelcoming these meetings are and how 
they are actively exclusive.

Instead of listening to your colleagues providing you with genuine feedback, 
you're defending your teams exclusive actions and refusing to acknowledge that 
there's room for improvement on the Kolla project.

> If we have correct mindset, that's all that matters and I, for one, am
> strong believer that Kolla community has been built on top of this
> mindset, and we keep doing good job on following it.

"If we have correct mindset" sounds to me like "If our intentions are good". 
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Intentions do not magically fix 
anything. Kolla didn't intend to exclude colleagues via these video 
conf

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-12-15 14:57:10 -0600:

> I will defend this thing as something what we needed at the time.
> Sometimes heated up video discussion helps to resolve
> misunderstandings which otherwise could grow up and become conflicts
> in community, which would be much worse.
> 
> So please, let's not put artificial rules regarding our communication
> just to be "inclusive". If there is a will to be inclusive, we can be
> regardless of tool, if there is none, no tool will help. I will
> advocate to allow whichever way community decides to work to that
> community and focus on building culture of inclusiveness.
> 
> If we have correct mindset, that's all that matters and I, for one, am
> strong believer that Kolla community has been built on top of this
> mindset, and we keep doing good job on following it.

I think most people are agreeing that having video meeings sometimes
is OK, as long as there is sufficient information published after
the fact. The reason we log IRC channels and meetings is to establish
a record that we can refer to when we miss meetings or need to
refresh our memories of a decision. That just takes extra effort
for meetings held in other ways.

I am a bit concerned that you seem to be treating this discussion
as hypothetical when it is not.  Many members of the community have
explained to you why it is a problem in general, but a member of
your team has brought you direct complaints about the way these
meetings are being managed. This is from someone trusted enough to
act as temporary PTL while you were unable to serve.

Please re-read the original complaints and the suggestions for
addressing them in this thread and consider what actions the Kolla
team can take to improve in this area.

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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-12-15 15:16:07 -0500:

> The next 'generation' of core reviewers will acquire their knowledge 
> largely from discussions between the current cores. It's important to 
> the long-term health of the project not to cut them off from those 
> discussions, even at some cost to the short-term velocity.
> 
> cheers,
> Zane.

That's an extremely important point. Thank you for raising it, Zane.

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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Flavio Percoco]

On 14/12/16 12:05 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:

Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-12-14 09:56:46 -0600:

OK, I think we had some grave misunderstandings here.

1. ad-hoc meetings *are not* and *were never meant to be* replacement
for weekly meetings. Kolla community is single community across all
its deliverables and we hold common meetings, chats and mailing list.
Also, as long as I'm PTL, I'm unwilling to change that.
2. Hangouts were never exclusive purposefully. Meeting link was always
posted on irc, and nobody were excluded apart from people not present
on irc at given time.
3. Language barrier is something to acknowledge. I would say if we
find ourselves in situation where one of hangout users has problem
communicating, we either move to IRC or try hard to accommodate his or
hers language barrier. But on few hangouts I was on, that was not the
case. If somebody didn't join because they were ashamed, please, feel
free to approach me on private message (or if I'm not around, hangout
organizer) and let me know. That would be reason enough to stick to
IRC in my book
4. Hangouts were never exclusive to core team. Just happened that core
reviewers were majority of it - not planned or enforced.
5. Only "exclusiveness" I can think of in context of ad hoc meetings
are that people who aren't around irc cannot have voice on this
meeting. Simply because they aren't around and meeting was unplanned.
That's the case with *any* discussion outside of dedicated 1hr every
week. Granted, irc has logs. Hangouts can have notes, or outcome could
be reflected as PoC in gerrit for example (which was the case of
hangout in question..).


As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Google Hangout
service itself is *blocked* in some countries. It is therefore by
definition not something we can call a fully open meeting venue. Which
is not to say it can never be used, but we all need to be aware of the
fact that choosing it means we exclude participation from other team
members (or potential team members).


+1

Besides Google Hangout being blocked in some countries, I'd also like to
highlight a couple of other issues with vide/voice meetings:

1) For *many* people in our community it's already *hard* enough to communicate
in written English. Requesting these members to join a video/voice meeting will
put them in a not-so-comfortable spot.

2) Many of our contributors live in countries where fast internet connection is,
unfortunately, not a reality. Having video/voice calls will likely prevent them
from joining as well.

3) Members of our community work in a variaty of different places (planes,
coffee shops, offices, homes, etc) and vide/voice meetings are difficult to join
in many of this places. For example, if you have a newborn, you probably don't
want to join a video/voice call to avoid making noise. If you work from a coffee
shop (or even an office), it'll be hard to join video/voice calls because of the
noise or who knows what else might be happening there. Let's not even talk about
planes ;)

4) Voice/video meetings are hard to log. This make it hard for folks in not
EU/US "friendly" timezones to keep up.

5) *Many* members of our community simply don't feel comfortable with
video/voice meetings, even native english speakers.

Some of these points have been mentioend already but given that I've a strong
opinion about this, I thought I'd mention them anyway. FWIW, sometimes waiting
for people to complain to change something is just the wrong strategy,
especially when it comes down to improving a community. If your community
depends on things that are unwelcome for some of its members, you must change
it. Some cultures don't believe in complaining and some others will just leave.
Either way, the project/community will pay the price.

I'd like to urge the kolla team to drop these video calls entirely and stick to
IRC which has been proven to be a good (not perfect) welcoming tool for the
OpenStack community.

Flavio

[snip]

--
@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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Michał Jastrzębski]

Ok, let me reverse this discussion. We think hangouts are exclusive,
and irc is not? I've seen multiple times when people were waaay into
discussion, lines of text swarming the screen, somebody from outside
speaks up, entirely reasonable and on topic thing, but is ignored
because other actors in discussion were busy smashing keyboard to
defend their mind? This person was unwillingly excluded from
conversation and might feel bad enough to not speak up again. I've
seen this happened. It happened to me on more than one occasion. That
speak up thing might not be so easily ignored if actually spoken up in
hangouts.

My point is, every communication channel has it's way to exclude
people. Some people are intimidated to even speak up in public. Some
people don't have money to travel to design summit. Saying that "we
include everyone" is utopia. Best we can do is to try hard to be
inclusive.

I think having rules like "no ad hoc hangout meetings" will be
extremely hurtful to communities. I am strong believer that different
problems works better with different solutions, and that's true for
communication too. Sometimes hot brainstorm-style ad hoc discussion is
exactly what project need. Sometimes we need long, stretched
discussion on ML, where everyone can speak up their mind in length.

Kolla community have always put inclusiveness as one of it's main
values to uphold, that is reflected in our diversity in both core team
and general community stats.

I did some digging and I think I know which particular hangout
sprouted this whole discussion, so let me give you some context:

1. This hangout ended 2 week long ongoing disagreement that we
couldn't resolve on irc or spec. It took 1hr of us actually talking to
each other to finally come to conclusion.
2. Most of kolla-k8s active team was there discussing
3. Besides kolla-k8s team we also had kubernetes community members who
are much more used to this type of discussion (not irc, so some could
argue that *this* was inclusive way to work between two opensource
communities, finding common toolset to communicate).
4. Part of why we did it in such an unplanned manned (therefore some
people interested weren't present at the time) is that this k8s
community members happened to join us at that time and we wanted to
make most of it.
5. At the end it helped us greatly to move past problems that stalled
our development for weeks.

I will defend this thing as something what we needed at the time.
Sometimes heated up video discussion helps to resolve
misunderstandings which otherwise could grow up and become conflicts
in community, which would be much worse.

So please, let's not put artificial rules regarding our communication
just to be "inclusive". If there is a will to be inclusive, we can be
regardless of tool, if there is none, no tool will help. I will
advocate to allow whichever way community decides to work to that
community and focus on building culture of inclusiveness.

If we have correct mindset, that's all that matters and I, for one, am
strong believer that Kolla community has been built on top of this
mindset, and we keep doing good job on following it.

Regards,
Michal

On 15 December 2016 at 14:16, Zane Bitter  wrote:
> On 14/12/16 18:18, Michał Jastrzębski wrote:
>>
>> I agree that meeting notes are crucial to this type of meeting.I just
>> say that gerrit PoC/demo is valid form of 'notes' if meeting was about
>> some implementional detail, which I assume is the case for this type of
>> meetings.
>>
>> Do we agree that as hoc hangout meetings are acceptable form of
>> cooperation if invitation is own and notes are published?
>
>
> It's not possible to have 100% open design. When I'm sitting alone at my
> desk thinking, that's kind of like a videoconference of one. Nobody else can
> be inside my head (much to y'all's relief, I'm sure). But open design means
> that everything I come up with there is subject to review, and possibly
> reversal, by the community. As such, it makes sense to keep the community
> updated as regularly as possible. It may seem like that's slowing down your
> work, but it actually speeds up the project as a whole because there's less
> work to be thrown out when the consensus comes down another way.
>
> IMHO the same rules apply when there's more than one person involved. It's
> fine to discuss, but not to think that you can make a decision for the
> community without the involvement of the rest of the community. What's
> really annoying is when some group gets together in private to discuss
> Problem X, and then comes back to the community to announce that "we need to
> implement Solution Y". That's not open design. Open design means laying out
> Problem X, Solution Y, alternative Solution Z, and the reasoning behind
> preferring one over the other, and then letting the community at large have
> their say (perhaps even proposing completely different solutions) before
> reaching a consensus.
>
> If the outcome of a 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Zane Bitter]

On 14/12/16 18:18, Michał Jastrzębski wrote:

I agree that meeting notes are crucial to this type of meeting.I just
say that gerrit PoC/demo is valid form of 'notes' if meeting was about
some implementional detail, which I assume is the case for this type of
meetings.

Do we agree that as hoc hangout meetings are acceptable form of
cooperation if invitation is own and notes are published?


It's not possible to have 100% open design. When I'm sitting alone at my 
desk thinking, that's kind of like a videoconference of one. Nobody else 
can be inside my head (much to y'all's relief, I'm sure). But open 
design means that everything I come up with there is subject to review, 
and possibly reversal, by the community. As such, it makes sense to keep 
the community updated as regularly as possible. It may seem like that's 
slowing down your work, but it actually speeds up the project as a whole 
because there's less work to be thrown out when the consensus comes down 
another way.


IMHO the same rules apply when there's more than one person involved. 
It's fine to discuss, but not to think that you can make a decision for 
the community without the involvement of the rest of the community. 
What's really annoying is when some group gets together in private to 
discuss Problem X, and then comes back to the community to announce that 
"we need to implement Solution Y". That's not open design. Open design 
means laying out Problem X, Solution Y, alternative Solution Z, and the 
reasoning behind preferring one over the other, and then letting the 
community at large have their say (perhaps even proposing completely 
different solutions) before reaching a consensus.


If the outcome of a private discussion is simply a Gerrit patch 
implementing Solution Y then that feels dangerously close to the 
undesirable case to me unless it's accompanied by extensive commentary.


A post to the mailing list with the extra details is one way of handling 
it. You have to trade off the extra cost of doing that against the 
benefit of a high-bandwidth burst of (effectively private) 
communication. If it's still worth it then that's OK. But if you try to 
have your cake and eat it then you risk compromising the openness of 
your design process.



So if one of potential attendees cannot join for that reason, again I
would consider this to be reason enough to move meeting back to irc.
IRC is and keep being our default communication channel.


I'm glad you see it that way too. However, we also need to be mindful of 
the fact that some people, especially newcomers, may not feel able to 
speak up and demand that an out-of-band meeting of cores not take place. 
Particularly if this becomes a routine occurrence.


The next 'generation' of core reviewers will acquire their knowledge 
largely from discussions between the current cores. It's important to 
the long-term health of the project not to cut them off from those 
discussions, even at some cost to the short-term velocity.


cheers,
Zane.

__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ian Cordasco]

 

-Original Message-
From: Michał Jastrzębski <inc...@gmail.com>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: December 14, 2016 at 17:20:21
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

> I agree that meeting notes are crucial to this type of meeting.I just say
> that gerrit PoC/demo is valid form of 'notes' if meeting was about some
> implementional detail, which I assume is the case for this type of meetings.

It really isn't though. It only covers the conclusion. It doesn't explain how 
that conclusion was reached. By not providing that information, you are hiding 
the path to that conclusion from the rest of the community that could not 
participate in the meeting. By saying "the final patchset makes this obvious" 
you're excluding:

- Users who don't review the code
- Users who won't have time to dig through commit history to find the commit 
that may or may not have an accurate summary of how that conclusion was reached
- Fellow developers who can't attend the meetings based on time
- Fellow developers who can attend the meetings but can't follow them (for 
various reasons)

If it's just "some implementation detail" then I really don't understand why it 
is important enough to need several developers to join a video call. If it was 
important enough or controversial enough to need a collaboration that 
significant, it's worth documenting in a form other than the commit itself.

> Do we agree that as hoc hangout meetings are acceptable form of cooperation
> if invitation is own and notes are published?

Well I think we all agree that Google Hangouts aren't acceptable as they 
exclude residents of an entire nation.

I don't think anyone's against teams using impromptu video calls to help 
resolve conversations. I think each team needs to listen to its members, 
though, and respond to their concerns.

--  
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Michał Jastrzębski]

I agree that meeting notes are crucial to this type of meeting.I just say
that gerrit PoC/demo is valid form of 'notes' if meeting was about some
implementional detail, which I assume is the case for this type of meetings.

Do we agree that as hoc hangout meetings are acceptable form of cooperation
if invitation is own and notes are published?

On Dec 14, 2016 12:57 PM, "Jeremy Stanley"  wrote:

> On 2016-12-14 14:37:26 -0600 (-0600), Ian Cordasco wrote:
> > From: Michał Jastrzębski 
> [...]
> > > Ian, you mentioned that gerrit as outcome of hangout violates 4
> > > opens...how?
> >
> > The artifacts of any meeting should include meeting notes. IRC
> > meetings have this autogenerated for us.
> [...]
>
> Another excellent example of this is design summit sessions. Not
> everyone can manage to attend in person, and remote involvement of
> more than one or two additional participants can be extremely
> challenging. We do, however, have an expectation that there are
> summaries of those discussions published to our mailing lists so
> that those who were excluded from the initial conversation can see
> what was discussed and follow up with feedback of their own there.
> --
> 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
>
__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2016-12-14 14:37:26 -0600 (-0600), Ian Cordasco wrote:
> From: Michał Jastrzębski 
[...]
> > Ian, you mentioned that gerrit as outcome of hangout violates 4
> > opens...how?
> 
> The artifacts of any meeting should include meeting notes. IRC
> meetings have this autogenerated for us.
[...]

Another excellent example of this is design summit sessions. Not
everyone can manage to attend in person, and remote involvement of
more than one or two additional participants can be extremely
challenging. We do, however, have an expectation that there are
summaries of those discussions published to our mailing lists so
that those who were excluded from the initial conversation can see
what was discussed and follow up with feedback of their own there.
-- 
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ian Cordasco]

 

-Original Message-
From: Michał Jastrzębski <inc...@gmail.com>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: December 14, 2016 at 09:58:33
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

> OK, I think we had some grave misunderstandings here.
>  
> 1. ad-hoc meetings *are not* and *were never meant to be* replacement
> for weekly meetings. Kolla community is single community across all
> its deliverables and we hold common meetings, chats and mailing list.
> Also, as long as I'm PTL, I'm unwilling to change that.

Unwilling to change holding video meetings that appear to be exclusive to 
members of your own community? If you're taking exclusionary actions as PTL, 
that seems like you're actively discouraging community involvement in the 
subject(s) of those meetings.

> 2. Hangouts were never exclusive purposefully. Meeting link was always
> posted on irc, and nobody were excluded apart from people not present
> on irc at given time.

Intent is not magical. The reality is that people have found them to be 
exclusive. So regardless of your intent, you need to find a better way to work 
around the communication problems or to make the results of the meeting more 
accessible.

> 3. Language barrier is something to acknowledge. I would say if we
> find ourselves in situation where one of hangout users has problem
> communicating, we either move to IRC or try hard to accommodate his or
> hers language barrier. But on few hangouts I was on, that was not the
> case. If somebody didn't join because they were ashamed, please, feel
> free to approach me on private message (or if I'm not around, hangout
> organizer) and let me know. That would be reason enough to stick to
> IRC in my book
> 4. Hangouts were never exclusive to core team. Just happened that core
> reviewers were majority of it - not planned or enforced.
> 5. Only "exclusiveness" I can think of in context of ad hoc meetings
> are that people who aren't around irc cannot have voice on this
> meeting. Simply because they aren't around and meeting was unplanned.
> That's the case with *any* discussion outside of dedicated 1hr every
> week. Granted, irc has logs. Hangouts can have notes, or outcome could
> be reflected as PoC in gerrit for example (which was the case of
> hangout in question..).
>  
> Ian, you mentioned that gerrit as outcome of hangout violates 4 opens...how?

The artifacts of any meeting should include meeting notes. IRC meetings have 
this autogenerated for us. Even if you send a summary to the mailing list saying

"Steve, Bob, and Michal were all on a call discussing this feature. We were 
having trouble agreeing between options x, y, and z. After chatting for 20 
minutes, we decided on this because of reasons a, b, and c. Review: 
https://review.openstack.org/:review_id has the final code details. Feel free 
to ping us on irc or the review with further questions."

--  
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-12-14 11:14:01 -0600:
> So if one of potential attendees cannot join for that reason, again I
> would consider this to be reason enough to move meeting back to irc.
> IRC is and keep being our default communication channel. Hangouts
> would only be mitigation of "typing is too slow for this flame"
> problem. With constant brainstorm mode that kolla-k8s currently is,
> this is the case sometimes. That's why we even had this few hangout
> meetings:)

That's good to hear.

Back to the original post, it seems that at least one Kolla team
member is feeling that the way these discussions are being handled
is leaving them out of important parts of the development process.
That says to me that either the meetings are happening too often,
or that the discussions are not being documented well after the
fact, or both.

Maybe it would be constructive to brainstorm ways to address the
complaints.

Doug

> 
> Still waiting for "punch other person in the face over IP" device...
> 
> On 14 December 2016 at 11:05, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-12-14 09:56:46 -0600:
> >> OK, I think we had some grave misunderstandings here.
> >>
> >> 1. ad-hoc meetings *are not* and *were never meant to be* replacement
> >> for weekly meetings. Kolla community is single community across all
> >> its deliverables and we hold common meetings, chats and mailing list.
> >> Also, as long as I'm PTL, I'm unwilling to change that.
> >> 2. Hangouts were never exclusive purposefully. Meeting link was always
> >> posted on irc, and nobody were excluded apart from people not present
> >> on irc at given time.
> >> 3. Language barrier is something to acknowledge. I would say if we
> >> find ourselves in situation where one of hangout users has problem
> >> communicating, we either move to IRC or try hard to accommodate his or
> >> hers language barrier. But on few hangouts I was on, that was not the
> >> case. If somebody didn't join because they were ashamed, please, feel
> >> free to approach me on private message (or if I'm not around, hangout
> >> organizer) and let me know. That would be reason enough to stick to
> >> IRC in my book
> >> 4. Hangouts were never exclusive to core team. Just happened that core
> >> reviewers were majority of it - not planned or enforced.
> >> 5. Only "exclusiveness" I can think of in context of ad hoc meetings
> >> are that people who aren't around irc cannot have voice on this
> >> meeting. Simply because they aren't around and meeting was unplanned.
> >> That's the case with *any* discussion outside of dedicated 1hr every
> >> week. Granted, irc has logs. Hangouts can have notes, or outcome could
> >> be reflected as PoC in gerrit for example (which was the case of
> >> hangout in question..).
> >
> > As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Google Hangout
> > service itself is *blocked* in some countries. It is therefore by
> > definition not something we can call a fully open meeting venue. Which
> > is not to say it can never be used, but we all need to be aware of the
> > fact that choosing it means we exclude participation from other team
> > members (or potential team members).
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >>
> >> Ian, you mentioned that gerrit as outcome of hangout violates 4 
> >> opens...how?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Michal
> >>
> >> On 14 December 2016 at 09:07, Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com>
> >> > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> >> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> >> > Date: December 14, 2016 at 08:08:33
> >> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> >> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> >> > Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input 
> >> > requested
> >> >
> >> >> On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Taking you to the extreme of your statement, it seems there are 
> >> >> > several of these "ad hoc"
> >> >> meetings a week (by inc0's admission). The video meetings seem to 
> >> >> replace the time that
> >> >> sub-team is missing 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Michał Jastrzębski]

So if one of potential attendees cannot join for that reason, again I
would consider this to be reason enough to move meeting back to irc.
IRC is and keep being our default communication channel. Hangouts
would only be mitigation of "typing is too slow for this flame"
problem. With constant brainstorm mode that kolla-k8s currently is,
this is the case sometimes. That's why we even had this few hangout
meetings:)

Still waiting for "punch other person in the face over IP" device...

On 14 December 2016 at 11:05, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-12-14 09:56:46 -0600:
>> OK, I think we had some grave misunderstandings here.
>>
>> 1. ad-hoc meetings *are not* and *were never meant to be* replacement
>> for weekly meetings. Kolla community is single community across all
>> its deliverables and we hold common meetings, chats and mailing list.
>> Also, as long as I'm PTL, I'm unwilling to change that.
>> 2. Hangouts were never exclusive purposefully. Meeting link was always
>> posted on irc, and nobody were excluded apart from people not present
>> on irc at given time.
>> 3. Language barrier is something to acknowledge. I would say if we
>> find ourselves in situation where one of hangout users has problem
>> communicating, we either move to IRC or try hard to accommodate his or
>> hers language barrier. But on few hangouts I was on, that was not the
>> case. If somebody didn't join because they were ashamed, please, feel
>> free to approach me on private message (or if I'm not around, hangout
>> organizer) and let me know. That would be reason enough to stick to
>> IRC in my book
>> 4. Hangouts were never exclusive to core team. Just happened that core
>> reviewers were majority of it - not planned or enforced.
>> 5. Only "exclusiveness" I can think of in context of ad hoc meetings
>> are that people who aren't around irc cannot have voice on this
>> meeting. Simply because they aren't around and meeting was unplanned.
>> That's the case with *any* discussion outside of dedicated 1hr every
>> week. Granted, irc has logs. Hangouts can have notes, or outcome could
>> be reflected as PoC in gerrit for example (which was the case of
>> hangout in question..).
>
> As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Google Hangout
> service itself is *blocked* in some countries. It is therefore by
> definition not something we can call a fully open meeting venue. Which
> is not to say it can never be used, but we all need to be aware of the
> fact that choosing it means we exclude participation from other team
> members (or potential team members).
>
> Doug
>
>>
>> Ian, you mentioned that gerrit as outcome of hangout violates 4 opens...how?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michal
>>
>> On 14 December 2016 at 09:07, Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com>
>> > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
>> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> > Date: December 14, 2016 at 08:08:33
>> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
>> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> > Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested
>> >
>> >> On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Taking you to the extreme of your statement, it seems there are several 
>> >> > of these "ad hoc"
>> >> meetings a week (by inc0's admission). The video meetings seem to replace 
>> >> the time that
>> >> sub-team is missing in the weekly IRC meeting, which Jeffrey has a plan 
>> >> to solve for.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, based on inc0's email, it seems that these meetings consistently 
>> >> > are made up primarily
>> >> (if not singularly) of "cores". So they seem to be violating the open's 
>> >> in that they're
>> >> effectively (even if not intentionally) creating a place where only 
>> >> sub-groups of people
>> >> working on kolla (k8s) can collaborate.
>> >> >
>> >> > Further, the kolla team seems to think that code submissions sent after 
>> >> > a meeting are
>> >> sufficient artifacts from the meeting, which there seems to be a majority 
>> >> who feel otherwise.
>> >> Based on Jeffrey's descriptions, inc0's email

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-12-14 09:56:46 -0600:
> OK, I think we had some grave misunderstandings here.
> 
> 1. ad-hoc meetings *are not* and *were never meant to be* replacement
> for weekly meetings. Kolla community is single community across all
> its deliverables and we hold common meetings, chats and mailing list.
> Also, as long as I'm PTL, I'm unwilling to change that.
> 2. Hangouts were never exclusive purposefully. Meeting link was always
> posted on irc, and nobody were excluded apart from people not present
> on irc at given time.
> 3. Language barrier is something to acknowledge. I would say if we
> find ourselves in situation where one of hangout users has problem
> communicating, we either move to IRC or try hard to accommodate his or
> hers language barrier. But on few hangouts I was on, that was not the
> case. If somebody didn't join because they were ashamed, please, feel
> free to approach me on private message (or if I'm not around, hangout
> organizer) and let me know. That would be reason enough to stick to
> IRC in my book
> 4. Hangouts were never exclusive to core team. Just happened that core
> reviewers were majority of it - not planned or enforced.
> 5. Only "exclusiveness" I can think of in context of ad hoc meetings
> are that people who aren't around irc cannot have voice on this
> meeting. Simply because they aren't around and meeting was unplanned.
> That's the case with *any* discussion outside of dedicated 1hr every
> week. Granted, irc has logs. Hangouts can have notes, or outcome could
> be reflected as PoC in gerrit for example (which was the case of
> hangout in question..).

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Google Hangout
service itself is *blocked* in some countries. It is therefore by
definition not something we can call a fully open meeting venue. Which
is not to say it can never be used, but we all need to be aware of the
fact that choosing it means we exclude participation from other team
members (or potential team members).

Doug

> 
> Ian, you mentioned that gerrit as outcome of hangout violates 4 opens...how?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michal
> 
> On 14 December 2016 at 09:07, Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com>
> > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> > Date: December 14, 2016 at 08:08:33
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> > Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested
> >
> >> On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Taking you to the extreme of your statement, it seems there are several 
> >> > of these "ad hoc"
> >> meetings a week (by inc0's admission). The video meetings seem to replace 
> >> the time that
> >> sub-team is missing in the weekly IRC meeting, which Jeffrey has a plan to 
> >> solve for.
> >> >
> >> > Also, based on inc0's email, it seems that these meetings consistently 
> >> > are made up primarily
> >> (if not singularly) of "cores". So they seem to be violating the open's in 
> >> that they're
> >> effectively (even if not intentionally) creating a place where only 
> >> sub-groups of people
> >> working on kolla (k8s) can collaborate.
> >> >
> >> > Further, the kolla team seems to think that code submissions sent after 
> >> > a meeting are
> >> sufficient artifacts from the meeting, which there seems to be a majority 
> >> who feel otherwise.
> >> Based on Jeffrey's descriptions, inc0's emails, and the rest of this 
> >> thread, it seems
> >> quite clear that kolla isn't obeying one of the 4 opens.
> >>
> >> Sorry, the conversation seems to have forked. The original issue was 
> >> Kolla’s practices,
> >> which then forked into a more general discussion. I was responding to the 
> >> general side
> >> of things: you can’t say that hangouts or hallway conversations are never 
> >> good things.
> >> But when they are misused, as is described in the Kolla case, then yes, 
> >> that should not
> >> be allowed to continue.
> >
> > No worries. I was trying to bring us back to the Kolla case. If we want to 
> > discuss more general guidelines around this stuff, I'd rather not hijack 
> > this thread because it highlights serious problems in how Ko

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Swapnil Kulkarni]

On Dec 14, 2016 7:03 PM, "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com> wrote:

Swapnil,

If you want to do that, please add it to the meeting agenda here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Kolla

Regards
-steve


Done



-Original Message-
From: Swapnil Kulkarni <cools...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 3:22 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>
wrote:
> Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> The issue raised is they violate the 4 opens.
>>
>> Not necessarily. If you have regular planning meetings and
discussions in an open manner as prescribed, an occasional conference to
discuss a particular matter is not a "violation". What if someone in your
office is working on OpenStack too, and you meet in the hallway and discuss
something technical? Does that violate the 4 Opens?
>>
>> I think we have to balance realism with idealism.
>
> Like I said elsewhere, this is not about suppressing any type of
visual
> or more direct interaction... It is about making sure you are not
> excluding anyone from a project.
>
> In the precise case we are discussing here, there are complaints from
> contributors to a project that recent Hangouts meetings used in the
> Kolla team results in them being excluded (either technically by not
> being able to join them, or creating additional difficulties for
> non-native language speakers to follow or participate in them).
>
> I'm all for giving teams a bit of flexibility in how they organize,
but
> if the process chosen by some of the contributors is clearly excluding
> other contributors, falling back to a more inclusive medium (like IRC
> meetings) is the obvious solution. Jeffrey took the hard step of
raising
> the issue, I don't think ignoring his point and pretending Hangout
> meetings are just fine will get you anywhere.
>
> --
> 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



I do not believe anyone is willing to exclude contributors at any
stage. If such (mis)understanding is there, it needs to be discussed
why it is there and how to remediate it since it's not good for the
community and is diverting the focus.
Let's have 5-10 mins in today's weekly meeting where we get the facts
together behind the issue and try to bring it to a conclusion.

OR have a detailed discussion on #openstack-kolla


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Michał Jastrzębski]

OK, I think we had some grave misunderstandings here.

1. ad-hoc meetings *are not* and *were never meant to be* replacement
for weekly meetings. Kolla community is single community across all
its deliverables and we hold common meetings, chats and mailing list.
Also, as long as I'm PTL, I'm unwilling to change that.
2. Hangouts were never exclusive purposefully. Meeting link was always
posted on irc, and nobody were excluded apart from people not present
on irc at given time.
3. Language barrier is something to acknowledge. I would say if we
find ourselves in situation where one of hangout users has problem
communicating, we either move to IRC or try hard to accommodate his or
hers language barrier. But on few hangouts I was on, that was not the
case. If somebody didn't join because they were ashamed, please, feel
free to approach me on private message (or if I'm not around, hangout
organizer) and let me know. That would be reason enough to stick to
IRC in my book
4. Hangouts were never exclusive to core team. Just happened that core
reviewers were majority of it - not planned or enforced.
5. Only "exclusiveness" I can think of in context of ad hoc meetings
are that people who aren't around irc cannot have voice on this
meeting. Simply because they aren't around and meeting was unplanned.
That's the case with *any* discussion outside of dedicated 1hr every
week. Granted, irc has logs. Hangouts can have notes, or outcome could
be reflected as PoC in gerrit for example (which was the case of
hangout in question..).

Ian, you mentioned that gerrit as outcome of hangout violates 4 opens...how?

Cheers,
Michal

On 14 December 2016 at 09:07, Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com>
> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: December 14, 2016 at 08:08:33
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested
>
>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>> >
>> > Taking you to the extreme of your statement, it seems there are several of 
>> > these "ad hoc"
>> meetings a week (by inc0's admission). The video meetings seem to replace 
>> the time that
>> sub-team is missing in the weekly IRC meeting, which Jeffrey has a plan to 
>> solve for.
>> >
>> > Also, based on inc0's email, it seems that these meetings consistently are 
>> > made up primarily
>> (if not singularly) of "cores". So they seem to be violating the open's in 
>> that they're
>> effectively (even if not intentionally) creating a place where only 
>> sub-groups of people
>> working on kolla (k8s) can collaborate.
>> >
>> > Further, the kolla team seems to think that code submissions sent after a 
>> > meeting are
>> sufficient artifacts from the meeting, which there seems to be a majority 
>> who feel otherwise.
>> Based on Jeffrey's descriptions, inc0's emails, and the rest of this thread, 
>> it seems
>> quite clear that kolla isn't obeying one of the 4 opens.
>>
>> Sorry, the conversation seems to have forked. The original issue was Kolla’s 
>> practices,
>> which then forked into a more general discussion. I was responding to the 
>> general side
>> of things: you can’t say that hangouts or hallway conversations are never 
>> good things.
>> But when they are misused, as is described in the Kolla case, then yes, that 
>> should not
>> be allowed to continue.
>
> No worries. I was trying to bring us back to the Kolla case. If we want to 
> discuss more general guidelines around this stuff, I'd rather not hijack this 
> thread because it highlights serious problems in how Kolla is operating that 
> a member of its team has brought up. I don't want us to side-track that 
> conversation too severely. :)
>
> --
> 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

__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ian Cordasco]

 

-Original Message-
From: Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: December 14, 2016 at 08:08:33
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> >
> > Taking you to the extreme of your statement, it seems there are several of 
> > these "ad hoc"  
> meetings a week (by inc0's admission). The video meetings seem to replace the 
> time that  
> sub-team is missing in the weekly IRC meeting, which Jeffrey has a plan to 
> solve for.
> >
> > Also, based on inc0's email, it seems that these meetings consistently are 
> > made up primarily  
> (if not singularly) of "cores". So they seem to be violating the open's in 
> that they're  
> effectively (even if not intentionally) creating a place where only 
> sub-groups of people  
> working on kolla (k8s) can collaborate.
> >
> > Further, the kolla team seems to think that code submissions sent after a 
> > meeting are  
> sufficient artifacts from the meeting, which there seems to be a majority who 
> feel otherwise.  
> Based on Jeffrey's descriptions, inc0's emails, and the rest of this thread, 
> it seems  
> quite clear that kolla isn't obeying one of the 4 opens.
>  
> Sorry, the conversation seems to have forked. The original issue was Kolla’s 
> practices,  
> which then forked into a more general discussion. I was responding to the 
> general side  
> of things: you can’t say that hangouts or hallway conversations are never 
> good things.  
> But when they are misused, as is described in the Kolla case, then yes, that 
> should not  
> be allowed to continue.

No worries. I was trying to bring us back to the Kolla case. If we want to 
discuss more general guidelines around this stuff, I'd rather not hijack this 
thread because it highlights serious problems in how Kolla is operating that a 
member of its team has brought up. I don't want us to side-track that 
conversation too severely. :)

--  
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Ian Cordasco  wrote:
> 
> Taking you to the extreme of your statement, it seems there are several of 
> these "ad hoc" meetings a week (by inc0's admission). The video meetings seem 
> to replace the time that sub-team is missing in the weekly IRC meeting, which 
> Jeffrey has a plan to solve for.
> 
> Also, based on inc0's email, it seems that these meetings consistently are 
> made up primarily (if not singularly) of "cores". So they seem to be 
> violating the open's in that they're effectively (even if not intentionally) 
> creating a place where only sub-groups of people working on kolla (k8s) can 
> collaborate.
> 
> Further, the kolla team seems to think that code submissions sent after a 
> meeting are sufficient artifacts from the meeting, which there seems to be a 
> majority who feel otherwise. Based on Jeffrey's descriptions, inc0's emails, 
> and the rest of this thread, it seems quite clear that kolla isn't obeying 
> one of the 4 opens.

Sorry, the conversation seems to have forked. The original issue was Kolla’s 
practices, which then forked into a more general discussion. I was responding 
to the general side of things: you can’t say that hangouts or hallway 
conversations are never good things. But when they are misused, as is described 
in the Kolla case, then yes, that should not be allowed to continue.


-- Ed Leafe






__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 14, 2016, at 4:03 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey took the hard step of raising
> the issue, I don't think ignoring his point and pretending Hangout
> meetings are just fine will get you anywhere.

That is why I suggested a balanced approach. If the current practice is 
impacting the members of the team negatively, then it is clearly out of 
balance. 

-- Ed Leafe






__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ian Cordasco]

-Original Message-
From: Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: December 13, 2016 at 21:45:39
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>  
> > The issue raised is they violate the 4 opens.
>  
> Not necessarily. If you have regular planning meetings and discussions in an 
> open manner  
> as prescribed, an occasional conference to discuss a particular matter is not 
> a "violation".  
> What if someone in your office is working on OpenStack too, and you meet in 
> the hallway  
> and discuss something technical? Does that violate the 4 Opens?
>  
> I think we have to balance realism with idealism.

Taking you to the extreme of your statement, it seems there are several of 
these "ad hoc" meetings a week (by inc0's admission). The video meetings seem 
to replace the time that sub-team is missing in the weekly IRC meeting, which 
Jeffrey has a plan to solve for.

Also, based on inc0's email, it seems that these meetings consistently are made 
up primarily (if not singularly) of "cores". So they seem to be violating the 
open's in that they're effectively (even if not intentionally) creating a place 
where only sub-groups of people working on kolla (k8s) can collaborate.

Further, the kolla team seems to think that code submissions sent after a 
meeting are sufficient artifacts from the meeting, which there seems to be a 
majority who feel otherwise. Based on Jeffrey's descriptions, inc0's emails, 
and the rest of this thread, it seems quite clear that kolla isn't obeying one 
of the 4 opens.

--  
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Swapnil,

If you want to do that, please add it to the meeting agenda here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Kolla

Regards
-steve


-Original Message-
From: Swapnil Kulkarni <cools...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 3:22 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> 
wrote:
> Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> 
wrote:
>>
>>> The issue raised is they violate the 4 opens.
>>
>> Not necessarily. If you have regular planning meetings and discussions 
in an open manner as prescribed, an occasional conference to discuss a 
particular matter is not a "violation". What if someone in your office is 
working on OpenStack too, and you meet in the hallway and discuss something 
technical? Does that violate the 4 Opens?
>>
>> I think we have to balance realism with idealism.
>
> Like I said elsewhere, this is not about suppressing any type of visual
> or more direct interaction... It is about making sure you are not
> excluding anyone from a project.
>
> In the precise case we are discussing here, there are complaints from
> contributors to a project that recent Hangouts meetings used in the
> Kolla team results in them being excluded (either technically by not
> being able to join them, or creating additional difficulties for
> non-native language speakers to follow or participate in them).
>
> I'm all for giving teams a bit of flexibility in how they organize, but
> if the process chosen by some of the contributors is clearly excluding
> other contributors, falling back to a more inclusive medium (like IRC
> meetings) is the obvious solution. Jeffrey took the hard step of raising
> the issue, I don't think ignoring his point and pretending Hangout
> meetings are just fine will get you anywhere.
>
> --
> 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



I do not believe anyone is willing to exclude contributors at any
stage. If such (mis)understanding is there, it needs to be discussed
why it is there and how to remediate it since it's not good for the
community and is diverting the focus.
Let's have 5-10 mins in today's weekly meeting where we get the facts
together behind the issue and try to bring it to a conclusion.

OR have a detailed discussion on #openstack-kolla

__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Swapnil Kulkarni]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
>>
>>> The issue raised is they violate the 4 opens.
>>
>> Not necessarily. If you have regular planning meetings and discussions in an 
>> open manner as prescribed, an occasional conference to discuss a particular 
>> matter is not a "violation". What if someone in your office is working on 
>> OpenStack too, and you meet in the hallway and discuss something technical? 
>> Does that violate the 4 Opens?
>>
>> I think we have to balance realism with idealism.
>
> Like I said elsewhere, this is not about suppressing any type of visual
> or more direct interaction... It is about making sure you are not
> excluding anyone from a project.
>
> In the precise case we are discussing here, there are complaints from
> contributors to a project that recent Hangouts meetings used in the
> Kolla team results in them being excluded (either technically by not
> being able to join them, or creating additional difficulties for
> non-native language speakers to follow or participate in them).
>
> I'm all for giving teams a bit of flexibility in how they organize, but
> if the process chosen by some of the contributors is clearly excluding
> other contributors, falling back to a more inclusive medium (like IRC
> meetings) is the obvious solution. Jeffrey took the hard step of raising
> the issue, I don't think ignoring his point and pretending Hangout
> meetings are just fine will get you anywhere.
>
> --
> 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



I do not believe anyone is willing to exclude contributors at any
stage. If such (mis)understanding is there, it needs to be discussed
why it is there and how to remediate it since it's not good for the
community and is diverting the focus.
Let's have 5-10 mins in today's weekly meeting where we get the facts
together behind the issue and try to bring it to a conclusion.

OR have a detailed discussion on #openstack-kolla

__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Thierry Carrez]

Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
> 
>> The issue raised is they violate the 4 opens.
> 
> Not necessarily. If you have regular planning meetings and discussions in an 
> open manner as prescribed, an occasional conference to discuss a particular 
> matter is not a "violation". What if someone in your office is working on 
> OpenStack too, and you meet in the hallway and discuss something technical? 
> Does that violate the 4 Opens?
> 
> I think we have to balance realism with idealism.

Like I said elsewhere, this is not about suppressing any type of visual
or more direct interaction... It is about making sure you are not
excluding anyone from a project.

In the precise case we are discussing here, there are complaints from
contributors to a project that recent Hangouts meetings used in the
Kolla team results in them being excluded (either technically by not
being able to join them, or creating additional difficulties for
non-native language speakers to follow or participate in them).

I'm all for giving teams a bit of flexibility in how they organize, but
if the process chosen by some of the contributors is clearly excluding
other contributors, falling back to a more inclusive medium (like IRC
meetings) is the obvious solution. Jeffrey took the hard step of raising
the issue, I don't think ignoring his point and pretending Hangout
meetings are just fine will get you anywhere.

-- 
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Samuel Cassiba]

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 19:43, Ed Leafe  wrote:
> 
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
> 
>> The issue raised is they violate the 4 opens.
> 
> Not necessarily. If you have regular planning meetings and discussions in an 
> open manner as prescribed, an occasional conference to discuss a particular 
> matter is not a "violation". What if someone in your office is working on 
> OpenStack too, and you meet in the hallway and discuss something technical? 
> Does that violate the 4 Opens?
> 
> I think we have to balance realism with idealism.

It wouldn’t be the first time video chats were shot down. As I recall, one of 
the conditions for the OpenStack Chef cookbooks to become an official OpenStack 
project was that we gave up our weekly Hangouts meetings in favor of weekly IRC 
meetings. As it was, when the cookbooks were still considered StackForge, links 
were sent out to the mailing list and channel prior to the meeting starting, to 
give people a time to get coffee, comb their hair and put on a shirt (pants 
optional).

Today, we do not hold weekly meetings as the cores are either west coast US or 
Europe, so pretty much every time is bad, as we have minimal overlap. It used 
to be pretty easy to point at a video call and say “I’m doing that right 
there”. Not so much to get an hour dedicated to IRC, because of the very nature 
of IRC, so we lost folks to the winds of change. At some point in the Newton 
cycle, we did not see much value in holding weekly IRC meetings, as we were 
just echoing what we said in our dedicated channel, so we gave up our scheduled 
slot. From the founding team, only two members remain.To date, one core has 
joined, bringing us up to three, down from eight, spread across two continents. 
The picture I paint is not good eats.

As PTL and direct consumer of the output of the cookbooks, I feel that 
eliminating the option to hold our meetings via video chat was a detrimental 
blow to the project's trajectory, as a result of becoming an OpenStack project. 
Given the cookbooks’ complexity and the ability to get shit done that came from 
having that virtual face-to-face time, it made sense to sit down and “uhm" and 
“hrm" about things with a like-minded individual, obligatory link in the 
channel for those playing along on IRC.

Since giving up Hangouts, we have had minimal auditory/visual interaction in 
the effort of “transparency” and being “open” on IRC. I recall that we had 
exactly one video chat since becoming an official project, and it was immensely 
useful for the few minutes we talked, and got more across than a day’s worth of 
IRC meetings.  Beyond that, our face time has involved meeting up at a given 
Summit that we all happen to attend, which is entirely too long to go between 
seeing teammates IMHO. The PTG isn’t of much benefit to the cookbooks, either, 
as it’s a non-trivial distance and expense for all of the cores for not much 
gain, when one of us can just shift hours for a video call.

-sc

> 
> 
> -- Ed Leafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 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



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:

> The issue raised is they violate the 4 opens.

Not necessarily. If you have regular planning meetings and discussions in an 
open manner as prescribed, an occasional conference to discuss a particular 
matter is not a "violation". What if someone in your office is working on 
OpenStack too, and you meet in the hallway and discuss something technical? 
Does that violate the 4 Opens?

I think we have to balance realism with idealism.


-- Ed Leafe






__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Swapnil Kulkarni]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Michał Jastrzębski  wrote:
> I really fail to see how add hoc meetings, if link will be posted openly on
> IRC, notes made public and invitation extended to everyone would violate 4
> opens. It's virtuality impossible in globally distributed project to have
> everyone interested around at all times. All decisions made will be
> reflected in gerrit when first code his it, etherpad or summary on IRC
> afterwards will allow those not present to get up to speed.
>
> I think we need to trust our fellow cores to have best interest of project
> in mind even when we are not around. Any issues can be dealt with later as
> well.
>
> Cheers,
> Michał
>

+1

> On Dec 13, 2016 5:12 AM, "Sean Dague"  wrote:
>
> On 12/13/2016 08:02 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Ed Leafe wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
 resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even
 make
 the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
 situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the
 video
 meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.
>>>
>>> Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to
>>> quickly settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress.
>>> When that happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and
>>> anyone who is interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC
>>> meeting, it’s no excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks that
>>> are harder to do in IRC.
>>
>> Last time I checked, Google Hangouts were not accessible from China...
>> So it *is* excluding some contributors ?
>>
>> I think it's fine to use Hangouts or phone calls to quickly go through
>> an issue. But if those become routine and if contributors express that
>> those are making them feel (or be) excluded, then it is important to
>> reassess your usage of them before it starts threatening our "open
>> development" and "open community" pillars.
>>
>> And in all cases, regular team meetings (or decision-making meetings)
>> should happen on IRC in logged channels.
>
> There is definitely a reality that there are circumstances where
> collaboration happens, and happens quickly, in some setting where not
> everyone was around. Be it at a conference, randomly finding people in a
> coffee shop, on a google hangout, a telephone call, etc.
>
> I think the most important thing is to take the time to take whatever
> happened there and put it out in open memory afterwards. For instance, a
> write up to the mailing list with the notes of what about the issue, the
> discussion, the resolution. This isn't only helpful for the people not
> in the room, it's also really helpful even for those in the room 6 or 12
> months later to try to recall why a particular course of action was taken.
>
> -Sean
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
Best Regards,
Swapnil Kulkarni
irc : coolsvap
coolsvap at gmail dot com
+91-87960 10622(c)
http://in.linkedin.com/in/coolsvap
"It's better to SHARE"

__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Michał Jastrzębski]

I really fail to see how add hoc meetings, if link will be posted openly on
IRC, notes made public and invitation extended to everyone would violate 4
opens. It's virtuality impossible in globally distributed project to have
everyone interested around at all times. All decisions made will be
reflected in gerrit when first code his it, etherpad or summary on IRC
afterwards will allow those not present to get up to speed.

I think we need to trust our fellow cores to have best interest of project
in mind even when we are not around. Any issues can be dealt with later as
well.

Cheers,
Michał

On Dec 13, 2016 5:12 AM, "Sean Dague"  wrote:

On 12/13/2016 08:02 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang 
wrote:
>>
>>> Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
>>> resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t
even make
>>> the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
>>> situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the
video
>>> meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.
>>
>> Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to
quickly settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress.
When that happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and
anyone who is interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC
meeting, it’s no excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks
that are harder to do in IRC.
>
> Last time I checked, Google Hangouts were not accessible from China...
> So it *is* excluding some contributors ?
>
> I think it's fine to use Hangouts or phone calls to quickly go through
> an issue. But if those become routine and if contributors express that
> those are making them feel (or be) excluded, then it is important to
> reassess your usage of them before it starts threatening our "open
> development" and "open community" pillars.
>
> And in all cases, regular team meetings (or decision-making meetings)
> should happen on IRC in logged channels.

There is definitely a reality that there are circumstances where
collaboration happens, and happens quickly, in some setting where not
everyone was around. Be it at a conference, randomly finding people in a
coffee shop, on a google hangout, a telephone call, etc.

I think the most important thing is to take the time to take whatever
happened there and put it out in open memory afterwards. For instance, a
write up to the mailing list with the notes of what about the issue, the
discussion, the resolution. This isn't only helpful for the people not
in the room, it's also really helpful even for those in the room 6 or 12
months later to try to recall why a particular course of action was taken.

-Sean

--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Sean Dague]

On 12/13/2016 08:02 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang  wrote:
>>
>>> Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
>>> resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even 
>>> make
>>> the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
>>> situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the video
>>> meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.
>>
>> Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to quickly 
>> settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress. When that 
>> happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and anyone who 
>> is interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC meeting, it’s 
>> no excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks that are harder to 
>> do in IRC.
> 
> Last time I checked, Google Hangouts were not accessible from China...
> So it *is* excluding some contributors ?
> 
> I think it's fine to use Hangouts or phone calls to quickly go through
> an issue. But if those become routine and if contributors express that
> those are making them feel (or be) excluded, then it is important to
> reassess your usage of them before it starts threatening our "open
> development" and "open community" pillars.
> 
> And in all cases, regular team meetings (or decision-making meetings)
> should happen on IRC in logged channels.

There is definitely a reality that there are circumstances where
collaboration happens, and happens quickly, in some setting where not
everyone was around. Be it at a conference, randomly finding people in a
coffee shop, on a google hangout, a telephone call, etc.

I think the most important thing is to take the time to take whatever
happened there and put it out in open memory afterwards. For instance, a
write up to the mailing list with the notes of what about the issue, the
discussion, the resolution. This isn't only helpful for the people not
in the room, it's also really helpful even for those in the room 6 or 12
months later to try to recall why a particular course of action was taken.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Thierry Carrez]

Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang  wrote:
> 
>> Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
>> resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even make
>> the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
>> situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the video
>> meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.
> 
> Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to quickly 
> settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress. When that 
> happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and anyone who is 
> interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC meeting, it’s no 
> excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks that are harder to do 
> in IRC.

Last time I checked, Google Hangouts were not accessible from China...
So it *is* excluding some contributors ?

I think it's fine to use Hangouts or phone calls to quickly go through
an issue. But if those become routine and if contributors express that
those are making them feel (or be) excluded, then it is important to
reassess your usage of them before it starts threatening our "open
development" and "open community" pillars.

And in all cases, regular team meetings (or decision-making meetings)
should happen on IRC in logged channels.

-- 
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Jeffrey Zhang]

I do not want to kill the ad hoc video meeting. But we should keep a certain
degree of openness. what i would like to see is an invitation in email or
irc
channel. some agenda which tell others want will be talked. And some
decision
made in the video meeting should be record in some way.

on eth other hand, Kolla project and its team grows. We have kolla,
kolla-ansible
and kolla-k8s projects now. some time 1 hour may be very tight, especially
for
kolla-k8s project, which is always talked at last and may have no much
time. I
want to make some change for this in the next kolla meeting.

the 1 hour meeting time will be split into 4 part 10-10-20-20, 10 min for
announcement, 10 min for kolla, 20 min for kolla-ansible and 20 min for
kolla-kubernetes.
So if u want talk something in the meeting, feel free to add it in agenda
list
before the meeting[0]

[0] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Kolla



On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Swapnil Kulkarni 
wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 13, 2016 8:44 AM, "Michał Jastrzębski"  wrote:
>
> I think video meetings Jeffrey is referring to are just that- quickly as
> hoc way to resolve some technical dispute or implementation. We did that
> few times to quickly work out kolla k8s issues. Hangouts are much more
> efficient way of discussions like that.
>
> My take on the issue is that we should use all tools available. Scheduling
> of such meetings would defeat their purpose of resolving things *quickly*.
> If something requires scheduling it should be done on our weekly meeting.
>
> Video meetings are thing in Kolla k8s for one more reason- we want to move
> fast and scheduling meeting with proper heads up for every technical
> dispute (couple of these every week) would seriously impede our ability to
> deliver. Ocata is our goal!
>
> Tldr; ad hoc video meetings are good for quickly paced dev like in Kolla
> k8s imho
>
> Cheers
> Michał
>
> On Dec 12, 2016 12:36 PM, "Ed Leafe"  wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang 
> wrote:
>
> > Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
> > resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even
> make
> > the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
> > situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the
> video
> > meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.
>
> Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to
> quickly settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress.
> When that happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and
> anyone who is interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC
> meeting, it’s no excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks
> that are harder to do in IRC.
>
>
> -- Ed Leafe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> 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
>
>
> I think there is a mutual understanding where we have informal/ ad-hoc/ on
> the fly meetings to discuss important things, like after design sessions in
> the corridor, during lunch/dinner, etc etc. Video calls or hangouts is just
> digital extension of it.
>
> Only recommendation I have is a digest either on etherpad or mailing list
> where people who missed can get required details.
>
> Swapnil
>
> __
> 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
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Jeffrey Zhang
Blog: http://xcodest.me
__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Swapnil Kulkarni]

On Dec 13, 2016 8:44 AM, "Michał Jastrzębski"  wrote:

I think video meetings Jeffrey is referring to are just that- quickly as
hoc way to resolve some technical dispute or implementation. We did that
few times to quickly work out kolla k8s issues. Hangouts are much more
efficient way of discussions like that.

My take on the issue is that we should use all tools available. Scheduling
of such meetings would defeat their purpose of resolving things *quickly*.
If something requires scheduling it should be done on our weekly meeting.

Video meetings are thing in Kolla k8s for one more reason- we want to move
fast and scheduling meeting with proper heads up for every technical
dispute (couple of these every week) would seriously impede our ability to
deliver. Ocata is our goal!

Tldr; ad hoc video meetings are good for quickly paced dev like in Kolla
k8s imho

Cheers
Michał

On Dec 12, 2016 12:36 PM, "Ed Leafe"  wrote:

On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang  wrote:

> Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
> resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even
make
> the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
> situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the
video
> meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.

Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to
quickly settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress.
When that happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and
anyone who is interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC
meeting, it’s no excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks
that are harder to do in IRC.


-- Ed Leafe






__
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


I think there is a mutual understanding where we have informal/ ad-hoc/ on
the fly meetings to discuss important things, like after design sessions in
the corridor, during lunch/dinner, etc etc. Video calls or hangouts is just
digital extension of it.

Only recommendation I have is a digest either on etherpad or mailing list
where people who missed can get required details.

Swapnil
__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

The issue raised is they violate the 4 opens.


From: Michał Jastrzębski <inc...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Monday, December 12, 2016 at 8:09 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

I think video meetings Jeffrey is referring to are just that- quickly as hoc 
way to resolve some technical dispute or implementation. We did that few times 
to quickly work out kolla k8s issues. Hangouts are much more efficient way of 
discussions like that.

My take on the issue is that we should use all tools available. Scheduling of 
such meetings would defeat their purpose of resolving things *quickly*. If 
something requires scheduling it should be done on our weekly meeting.

Video meetings are thing in Kolla k8s for one more reason- we want to move fast 
and scheduling meeting with proper heads up for every technical dispute (couple 
of these every week) would seriously impede our ability to deliver. Ocata is 
our goal!

Tldr; ad hoc video meetings are good for quickly paced dev like in Kolla k8s 
imho

Cheers
Michał

On Dec 12, 2016 12:36 PM, "Ed Leafe" <e...@leafe.com<mailto:e...@leafe.com>> 
wrote:
On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang 
<zhang.lei@gmail.com<mailto:zhang.lei@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
> resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even make
> the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
> situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the video
> meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.
Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to quickly 
settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress. When that 
happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and anyone who is 
interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC meeting, it’s no 
excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks that are harder to do in 
IRC.


-- Ed Leafe






__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Michał Jastrzębski]

I think video meetings Jeffrey is referring to are just that- quickly as
hoc way to resolve some technical dispute or implementation. We did that
few times to quickly work out kolla k8s issues. Hangouts are much more
efficient way of discussions like that.

My take on the issue is that we should use all tools available. Scheduling
of such meetings would defeat their purpose of resolving things *quickly*.
If something requires scheduling it should be done on our weekly meeting.

Video meetings are thing in Kolla k8s for one more reason- we want to move
fast and scheduling meeting with proper heads up for every technical
dispute (couple of these every week) would seriously impede our ability to
deliver. Ocata is our goal!

Tldr; ad hoc video meetings are good for quickly paced dev like in Kolla
k8s imho

Cheers
Michał

On Dec 12, 2016 12:36 PM, "Ed Leafe"  wrote:

On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang  wrote:

> Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
> resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even
make
> the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
> situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the
video
> meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.

Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to
quickly settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress.
When that happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and
anyone who is interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC
meeting, it’s no excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks
that are harder to do in IRC.


-- Ed Leafe






__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Zhang  wrote:

> Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
> resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even make
> the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
> situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the video
> meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.

Occasionally a quick Google hangout is necessary in Nova in order to quickly 
settle an outstanding issue so we can continue to make progress. When that 
happens, the link is posted in the #openstack-nova channel, and anyone who is 
interested can join. So while it’s not logged like an IRC meeting, it’s no 
excluding anyone, and we can quickly remove roadblocks that are harder to do in 
IRC.


-- Ed Leafe






__
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] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

[Matthew Treinish]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:16:13AM +0800, Jeffrey Zhang wrote:
> TC
> ​,
> ​
> Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has
> resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even
> make
> the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might produce a
> situation in which there is no any record of decisions made during the video
> meeting. At least with IRC meetings there is always a log.
> 
> One solution is to schedule these meetings and have two 1 hour meetings per
> week.
> 
> As the PTL while Michal is moving, I have trouble following these video
> meetings since English isn’t my native language. Can you offer any advice
> for
> our project?
> 

Well one of is 4 opens open community specifically calls out having official
meetings over irc. [1] It's also a requirement for OpenStack projects to have
meetings on irc where they're logged. [2] If these video meetings are being used
to make decisions and there is no discussion of it in on the ML or via an 
official
irc meeting then that's a problem. (for the reasons you've outlined)

This basic topic was also discussed before in the thread starting here:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-February/056551.html

As Flavio said there I don't think we can (or should?) prevent people from
having ad-hoc calls or video chats to work through an issue. They can be quite
valuable to work through a disagreement or other problem with high bandwidth
communication. But, that by itself should never be definitive discussion or
used in lieu of an open communication mechanism to make decisions in the
community. Whatever is discussed in these has to go through the normal
open communication mechanisms we use in the community before you can act upon
them.

I'm not really familiar with the full scope of these video meetings Kolla is
having (this is the first I've heard of them) but based on your description it
sounds like they are encroaching on violating the open community requirement
for projects. I think this is especially true if you're using the video
meetings as a replacement for irc meetings. But, without knowing all the
details I can't say for certain.


-Matt Treinish

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/opens.html#open-community
[2] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html


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