++ that was very helpful, thanks Chris!
On 10/2/18 6:18 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
Chris,
Thanks for all the hard work you have put into this. FWIW I found value in
your reports, but perhaps because I am not involved in the daily activities of
the TC.
Cheers
-steve
On 10/2/18, 8:25
Chris,
Thanks for all the hard work you have put into this. FWIW I found value in
your reports, but perhaps because I am not involved in the daily activities of
the TC.
Cheers
-steve
On 10/2/18, 8:25 AM, "Chris Dent" wrote:
HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-40.html
___
From: Thierry Carrez [thie...@openstack.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 5:24 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
Zane Bitter wrote:
> [...]
>> And I'm not convinced that's an either/or choice...
>
> I
Zane Bitter wrote:
[...]
And I'm not convinced that's an either/or choice...
I said specifically that it's an either/or/and choice.
I was speaking more about the "we need to pick between two approaches,
let's document them" that the technical vision exercise started as.
Basically I mean I'm
On 17/07/18 10:44, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Finally found the time to properly read this...
For anybody else who found the wall of text challenging, I distilled the
longest part into a blog post:
https://www.zerobanana.com/archive/2018/07/17#openstack-layer-model-limitations
Zane Bitter wrote
Inlining with KF>
From: Thierry Carrez [thie...@openstack.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 7:44 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
Finally found the time to properly read this...
Zane Bit
Finally found the time to properly read this...
Zane Bitter wrote:
[...]
We chose to add features to Nova to compete with vCenter/oVirt, and not
to add features the would have enabled OpenStack as a whole to compete
with more than just the compute provisioning subset of EC2/Azure/GCP.
Could
I'm not Kevin but I think I can clarify some of these.
On 03/07/18 16:04, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 07/03/2018 02:37 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
So these days containers are out clouding vms at this use case. So, does Nova continue to be cloudy vm or does it go for the more production vm use case like oV
On 07/06/2018 12:58 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 02/07/18 19:13, Jay Pipes wrote:
Nova's primary competition is:
* Stand-alone Ironic
* oVirt and stand-alone virsh callers
* Parts of VMWare vCenter [3]
* MaaS in some respects
Do you see KubeVirt or Kata or Virtlet or RancherVM ending up on this
On 02/07/18 19:13, Jay Pipes wrote:
Also note that when I've said that *OpenStack* should have a smaller
mission and scope, that doesn't mean that higher-level services
aren't necessary or wanted.
Thank you for saying this, and could I please ask you to repeat this
disclaimer whenever you tal
-
*From:* Dmitry Tantsur [dtant...@redhat.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2018 11:17 AM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 19:31 Fox, Kevin M <mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>
uggoth.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 10:47 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On 2018-07-05 17:30:23 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
[...]
> Deploying k8s doesn't need a general solution to
Tantsur [dtant...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 11:17 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 19:31 Fox, Kevin M
mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
We're pretty far int
I think 2 tangents away from the original topic
> now. If folks are interested in continuing this discussion, lets open a new
> thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> ____________________________
> From: Dmitry Tantsur [dtant...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 4:24 AM
>
On 2018-07-05 17:30:23 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
[...]
> Deploying k8s doesn't need a general solution to deploying generic
> base OS's. Just enough OS to deploy K8s and then deploy everything
> on top in containers. Deploying a seed k8s with minikube is pretty
> trivial. I'm not suggestin
m the original topic now. If
folks are interested in continuing this discussion, lets open a new thread.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Dmitry Tantsur [dtant...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 4:24 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [ope
es so much contention?
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 10:06 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On 07/02/2018 03:31 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 28/06/18 15:09, Fox,
Replying inline in outlook. Sorry. :( Prefixing with KF>
-Original Message-
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 1:04 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
I'll answer inline, so t
addon.
Thats a problem.
I don't have any game consoles nor do I develop software for them, so I
don't really see the correlation here. That said, I'm 100% against a
monolithic application approach, as I've mentioned before.
Best,
-jay
Thanks,
Kevin
_________________
ing enough OpenStack to get a self
hosting ironic working.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 10:06 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On 07/02/201
onder if anyone made it this far without their head exploding already. :)
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 2:45 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 4:13 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On 06/27/2018 07:23 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 27/06/18 07:55, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> Above, I was
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:06 PM Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2018 03:31 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> > On 28/06/18 15:09, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> >> * made the barrier to testing/development as low as 'curl
> >> http://..minikube; minikube start' (this spurs adoption and
> >> contribution)
> >
> >
On 07/02/2018 03:31 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 28/06/18 15:09, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
* made the barrier to testing/development as low as 'curl
http://..minikube; minikube start' (this spurs adoption and
contribution)
That's not so different from devstack though.
* not having large silo'
Zane Bitter wrote:
[...]
I think if OpenStack wants to gain back some of the steam it had
before, it needs to adjust to the new world it is living in. This means:
* Consider abolishing the project walls. They are driving bad
architecture (not intentionally but as a side affect of structure)
On 06/27/2018 07:23 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 27/06/18 07:55, Jay Pipes wrote:
Above, I was saying that the scope of the *OpenStack* community is
already too broad (IMHO). An example of projects that have made the
*OpenStack* community too broad are purpose-built telco applications
like Tacker
On 07/02/2018 03:12 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
I think a lot of the pushback around not adding more common/required services
is the extra load it puts on ops though. hence these:
* Consider abolishing the project walls.
* simplify the architecture for ops
IMO, those need to change to break f
iners and get a vastly simpler architecture for
operators to deal with. Yes, this would be a major disruptive change to
OpenStack. But long term, I think it would make for a much healthier OpenStack.
Thanks,
Kevin
____________________________
From: Zane Bitter [zbit...@redhat.com]
Sen
om]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 11:41 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On 06/28/2018 02:09 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> I'll weigh in a bit with my operator hat on as recent experience it pertains
> to the current conversa
ry heavy for ops. You could tie in K8s's
> pod scheduler with vm stuff running in containers and get a vastly simpler
> architecture for operators to deal with. Yes, this would be a major
> disruptive change to OpenStack. But long term, I think it would make for a
> much healthier Ope
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
I think if OpenStack wants to gain back some of the steam it had before, it
needs to adjust to the new world it is living in. This means:
* Consider abolishing the project walls. They are driving bad architecture (not
intentionally but as a side affect
My two cents:
> I think if OpenStack wants to gain back some of the steam it had before, it
> needs to adjust to the new world it is living in. This means:
> * Consider abolishing the project walls. They are driving bad architecture
> (not intentionally but as a side affect of structure)
As lo
From: Zane Bitter [zbit...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 4:23 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On 27/06/18 07:55, Jay Pipes wrote:
> WARNING:
>
> Danger, Will Robinson! Stro
On 27/06/18 07:55, Jay Pipes wrote:
WARNING:
Danger, Will Robinson! Strong opinions ahead!
I'd have been disappointed with anything less :)
On 06/26/2018 10:00 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 26/06/18 09:12, Jay Pipes wrote:
Is (one of) the problem(s) with our community that we have too small
of
Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
I've also argued in the past that all distro- or vendor-specific
deployment tools (Fuel, Triple-O, etc [3]) should live outside of
OpenStack because these projects are more products and the relentless
drive of vendor product management (rightfully) pushes the scope of
t
WARNING:
Danger, Will Robinson! Strong opinions ahead!
On 06/26/2018 10:00 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 26/06/18 09:12, Jay Pipes wrote:
Is (one of) the problem(s) with our community that we have too small
of a scope/footprint? No. Not in the slightest.
Incidentally, this is an interesting/amus
On 26/06/18 09:12, Jay Pipes wrote:
Is (one of) the problem(s) with our community that we have too small of
a scope/footprint? No. Not in the slightest.
Incidentally, this is an interesting/amusing example of what we talked
about this morning on IRC[1]: you say your concern is that the scope o
On 26/06/18 09:12, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/26/2018 08:41 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
Meanwhile, to continue [last week's theme](/tc-report-18-25.html),
the TC's role as listener, mediator, and influencer lacks
definition.
Zane wrote up a blog post explaining the various ways in which the
OpenStack Fou
"What is OpenStack"
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:12 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-26
On 06/26/2018 08:41 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
On 06/26/2018 08:41 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
Meanwhile, to continue [last week's theme](/tc-report-18-25.html),
the TC's role as listener, mediator, and influencer lacks
definition.
Zane wrote up a blog post explaining the various ways in which the
OpenStack Foundation is
[expanding](https://www.z
On Jun 19, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> Many of the things that get written will start off wrong but the
> only way they have a chance of becoming right is if they are written
> in the first place.
This.
Too many people are afraid of doing anything that might turn out to be the
"wr
Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
>
> Graham Hayes wrote:
> > Any additional background on why we allowed LCOO to operate like this
> > would help a lot.
>
The group was started back when OPNFV was first getting involved with
OpenStack. Many of the members came from that community.
Graham Hayes wrote:
Any additional background on why we allowed LCOO to operate like this
would help a lot.
We can't prevent any group of organizations to work in any way they
prefer -- we can, however, deny them the right to be called an OpenStack
workgroup if they fail at openly collaborati
gt; From: Graham Hayes
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 18:22
>> To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org"
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
gt; From: Graham Hayes
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 18:22
>> To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org"
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
-04-26T15:03:54
> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Hayes
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 18:22
> To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org"
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
tions)"
Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 18:22
To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
..
> # LCOO
>
> There's been some concern expressed about the The Large Contributing
> OpenStack Op
On 15/05/18 16:31, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-20.html
>
> Trying to write a TC report after a gap of 3 weeks is hard enough,
> but when that gap involves some time off, the TC elections, and the
> run up to summit (next week in
> [Vancouver](https://www.opensta
On 24/04/18 08:35, Chris Dent wrote:
The main TC-related activity over the past week has been the
[elections](https://governance.openstack.org/election/) currently in
progress. A quiet campaigning period burst into late activity with a
series of four questions posted in email by Doug Hellman:
*
In case people have missed it, Jim Blair sent an email recently to
shed some light on where Zuul is headed [1].
[1]: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128396.html
David Moreau Simard
Senior Software Engineer | OpenStack RDO
dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter]
On Tue,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:24:19PM +, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-12.html
>
> This week's TC Report goes off in the weeds a bit with the editorial
> commentary from yours truly. I had trouble getting started, so had
> to push myself through some thinking by
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joshua Harlow wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
The PTG has always been about taking the team discussions that happened
at the Ops Summit / Design Summit to have them in a more productive
environment.
I am just going to say it but can we *please* stop distinguishing
between op
Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> The PTG has always been about taking the team discussions that happened
>> at the Ops Summit / Design Summit to have them in a more productive
>> environment.
>
> I am just going to say it but can we *please* stop distinguishing
> between ops and dev
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Matt Riedemann wrote:
I don't get the inward/outward thing. First two days of the old design
summit (ops summit?) format was all cross-project stuff (docs, upgrades,
testing, ops feedback, etc). That's the same as what happens at the PTG
now too. The last three days of the
Matt Riedemann wrote:
> I don't get the inward/outward thing. First two days of the old design
> summit (ops summit?) format was all cross-project stuff (docs, upgrades,
> testing, ops feedback, etc). That's the same as what happens at the PTG
> now too. The last three days of the old design summit
On 3/7/2018 2:24 PM, Lance Bragstad wrote:
I tried bringing this up during the PTG feedback session last Thursday
Unless you wanted to talk about snow, there was no feedback to be had at
the feedback session.
Being able to actually give feedback on the PTG during the PTG feedback
session is
On 07/03/18 20:24, Lance Bragstad wrote:
>
>
> On 03/07/2018 06:12 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>
>> HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-10.html
>>
>> This is a TC Report, but since everything that happened in its window
>> of observation is preparing for the
>> [PTG](https://www.openstack.org/p
On 03/07/2018 06:12 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-10.html
>
> This is a TC Report, but since everything that happened in its window
> of observation is preparing for the
> [PTG](https://www.openstack.org/ptg), being at the PTG, trying to get
> home from the PT
On 3/7/2018 6:12 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
# Talking about the PTG at the PTG
At the [board
meeting](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2018-March/002570.html),
the future of the PTG was a big topic. As currently constituted it
presents some challenges:
* It is difficult for some pe
On 2018-02-13 11:31 AM, gordon chung wrote:
>
>
> was there a resolution for this? iiuc, pgsql is not supported by glance
> based on:
> https://github.com/openstack/glance/commit/f268df1cbc3c356c472ace04bd4f2d4b3da6c026
>
err... nevermind. it seems
https://github.com/openstack/glance/commit/
On 2/13/2018 10:31 AM, gordon chung wrote:
was there a resolution for this? iiuc, pgsql is not supported by glance
based on:
https://github.com/openstack/glance/commit/f268df1cbc3c356c472ace04bd4f2d4b3da6c026
i don't know if it was a bad commit but it seems to break any case that
tries to use pg
On 2018-02-13 10:08 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> # PostgreSQL and Triggers
>
> Later in the [same
> day](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-02-07.log.html#t2018-02-07T17:18:56)
>
>
> there was some discussion about the state of PostgreSQL support and
> t
On 30/01/18 18:34, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> Linkified: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-05.html
>
> Your author has been rather ill, so this week's TC Report will be a
> bit abridged and mostly links. I'll try to return with more robust
> commentary next week.
>
> ## RDO Test Days
>
> dmsimard s
On 30/01/18 18:34, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> ## Today's Board Meeting
>
> I attended [today's Board
> Meeting](https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/30Jan2018BoardMeeting)
>
> but it seems that according to the [transparency
> policy](http://www.openstack.org/legal/transparency-poli
Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2018-01-26 10:08:46 -0600:
> On 1/26/2018 9:57 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Ideally we would use the time at the PTG to discuss implementation
> > details.
>
> For something like the mox one, there really are no implementation
> details, are there?
>
Th
On 1/26/2018 9:57 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Ideally we would use the time at the PTG to discuss implementation
details.
For something like the mox one, there really are no implementation
details, are there?
--
Thanks,
Matt
___
Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2018-01-26 09:38:18 -0600:
> On 1/23/2018 12:40 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
> > ## OpenStack-wide Goals
> >
> > There are four proposed [OpenStack-wide
> > goals](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html):
> >
> > * [Add Cold upgrades
> > capabil
On 1/23/2018 12:40 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
## OpenStack-wide Goals
There are four proposed [OpenStack-wide
goals](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html):
* [Add Cold upgrades
capabilities](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/533544/)
* [Add Rocky goal to remove
mox](https://revi
On 1/23/2018 5:22 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
if i were to (potentially) oversimplify it, i would agree with this
statement:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-01-23.log.html#t2018-01-23T10:12:22
i don't believe a PTL necessarily has to keep the whole state
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, gordon chung wrote:
i love this intro. when does your coming-of-age book come out? :)
What, you don't have it already? It's _so_ amazing.
i think this probably links back to the issues with openstack-specs.
maybe it's because the tasks aren't flashy enough, maybe it's be
On 2018-01-23 01:40 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> (Hyperlinkified for your pleasure:
> https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-04.html )
>
> When a person is in early adolescence they get cramps in their legs
> and call it growing pains. Later, in adulthood, there's a different
> kind of pain when the
On 04/05/17 08:18 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-05-03 14:04:40 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2017-05-03 13:23:11 -0400:
On 05/03/2017 01:02 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2017-05-03 14:04:40 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2017-05-03 13:23:11 -0400:
On 05/03/2017 01:02 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's me
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-05-03 14:04:40 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2017-05-03 13:23:11 -0400:
>>> On 05/03/2017 01:02 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-05-03 18:16:29 +0200:
> [...]
Knowing what
On 2017-05-03 14:04:40 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2017-05-03 13:23:11 -0400:
> > On 05/03/2017 01:02 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-05-03 18:16:29 +0200:
[...]
> > > Knowing what will be discussed in adv
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2017-05-03 13:23:11 -0400:
> On 05/03/2017 01:02 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-05-03 18:16:29 +0200:
> >> Ed Leafe wrote:
> >>> On May 3, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >>>
> In the current
> s
On 05/03/2017 01:02 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-05-03 18:16:29 +0200:
>> Ed Leafe wrote:
>>> On May 3, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>
In the current
system, TC members (or really, anyone in the community) can add to the
"Ope
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-05-03 18:16:29 +0200:
> Ed Leafe wrote:
> > On May 3, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >
> >> In the current
> >> system, TC members (or really, anyone in the community) can add to the
> >> "Open discussion" section of the meeting agenda, bu
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Chris Dent wrote:
> >
> > # Intro
> >
> > Feedback from last week's first attempt at a weekly overview of TC
> > activity was positive enough to continue. Suggestions on how to make
> > it more useful welcome. Main change this time is that I
Ed Leafe wrote:
> On May 3, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> In the current
>> system, TC members (or really, anyone in the community) can add to the
>> "Open discussion" section of the meeting agenda, but that happens
>> extremely rarely. I suspect that the 5 minutes per week that we
On May 3, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> In the current
> system, TC members (or really, anyone in the community) can add to the
> "Open discussion" section of the meeting agenda, but that happens
> extremely rarely. I suspect that the 5 minutes per week that we end up
> dedicating to
Chris - I am sure that this was said before (I do recall a mail last
week on the mailing list after you sent it out).
Thank you - this is awesome!
A great recap - please continue doing this!!
On 03/05/17 0:46, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> # Intro
>
> Feedback from last week's first attempt at a weekly
Chris Dent wrote:
>
> # Intro
>
> Feedback from last week's first attempt at a weekly overview of TC
> activity was positive enough to continue. Suggestions on how to make
> it more useful welcome. Main change this time is that I've added
> some information on stuff happened outside the meeting,
83 matches
Mail list logo
