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
t;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 swarmin
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
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,
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
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
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
t;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,
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
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
t;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
Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com>
> >> > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >> > <openst
>> 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 Li
-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 usa
;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.ope
.@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>
>
t;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"
> meeti
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
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
t;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
uot;
<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, D
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ck 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.
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
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
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
35 matches
Mail list logo