On 07/12/16 14:29 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Dolph Mathews wrote:
[...]
I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-12-02 11:35:05 +0100:
> So I'm now wondering how much that artificial scarcity policy is hurting
> us more than it helps us. I'm still convinced it's very valuable to have
> a number of "meetings rooms" that you can lurk in and be available for
>
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> There was a thread in the past discussing renaming -alt to -2 but it
> concluded that it was not worth the hassle (losing the 489 people
> hanging there).
>
I was thinking maybe #openstack-meeting-alt could be
John Villalovos wrote:
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling
> pressure
>
>
> Any reason it isn't #openstack-meeting-2 ?
>
> The -2 channel is owned by openstackinfra.
Currently we have:
#openstack-meeting
#openstack-meeting-alt
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling
> pressure
>
Any reason it isn't #openstack-meeting-2 ?
The -2 channel is owned by openstackinfra.
Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:29:03PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> So how about:
>> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
>> - we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
>> to (and show them all on the
On 2016-12-07 12:14:06 -0600 (-0600), Ian Cordasco wrote:
[...]
> So I'm all for non-official projects using their own channels for
> meetings. My only wish (as someone working on a non-official
> project) would be that we could use meeting bot the same way we
> would in a meeting channel.
It's
ck.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?
> Dolph Mathews wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
> > collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
> >
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:29:03PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
> - we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
> to (and show them all on the meeting agenda through the
Dolph Mathews wrote:
> [...]
> I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
> collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
> with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
> majority of projects that don't hold primetime
2016-12-05 12:51 GMT-06:00 Paul Belanger :
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:15AM +0100, Luigi Toscano wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> > But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
>> > really need to be in a
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:15AM +0100, Luigi Toscano wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
> > really need to be in a separate -alt room for those when we have the
> > channel and anyone
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 8:49 PM Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:35:05AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > There has been a bit of tension lately around creating IRC meetings.
> > I've been busy[1] cleaning up unused slots and
On 2016-12-05 08:43:38 +0100 (+0100), Andreas Jaeger wrote:
[...]
> Accessbot is just permissions - this is not relevant.
[...]
To clarify, our accessbot never joins any channels at all. It only
connects to the server and interacts with ChanServ to configure
permissions for the channels listed.
On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
> But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
> really need to be in a separate -alt room for those when we have the
> channel and anyone that cares about stable enough to be in the meeting
> is already in that
On 2016-12-05 05:18, Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:
>
>> Do we know how many of the project level rooms currently have bots? I know I
>> ran into an issue that one of the bots was at its maximum (128 rooms) and,
>> therefore, I concerned about the
> On Dec 4, 2016, at 11:18 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:
>>
>> Do we know how many of the project level rooms currently have bots? I know I
>> ran into an issue that one of the bots was at its maximum (128 rooms)
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:
> Do we know how many of the project level rooms currently have bots? I know I
> ran into an issue that one of the bots was at its maximum (128 rooms) and,
> therefore, I concerned about the infrastructure necessary to support too many
>
> On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:35:05AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> There has been a bit of tension lately around creating IRC meetings.
>> I've been busy[1] cleaning up unused slots and
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:35:05AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> There has been a bit of tension lately around creating IRC meetings.
> I've been busy[1] cleaning up unused slots and defragmenting biweekly
> ones to open up possibilities, but truth is, even with those changes
>
Thierry,
I personally prefer the meeting rooms as they are; however, we do need more of
them. I am often pinged in various other meetings in the common meeting
channels and find the group communication that happens in this way preferable
to joining each specific project channel. Joining each
On 12/2/2016 8:38 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
Thierry, when we were adding the #openstack-swg group, we had this
conversation and I observed that my own preference would be for a project's
meetings to be in that projects room. It makes it easier to then search for
logs for something (say SWG
On 2016-12-02 11:35:05 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> So I'm now wondering how much that artificial scarcity policy is hurting
> us more than it helps us. I'm still convinced it's very valuable to have
> a number of "meetings rooms" that you can lurk in and be available for
> pings,
6 7:52 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?
>
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > Do we have any real data on just how many contributors really do lurk
> > in the meeting rooms permanently, as opposed to
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Do we have any real data on just how many contributors really do
> lurk in the meeting rooms permanently, as opposed to merely joining
> rooms at start of the meeting & leaving immediately thereafter ?
There are currently 488 permanent residents on #openstack-meeting,
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:35:05AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> There has been a bit of tension lately around creating IRC meetings.
> I've been busy[1] cleaning up unused slots and defragmenting biweekly
> ones to open up possibilities, but truth is, even with those changes
>
26 matches
Mail list logo