couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [REMINDER] IRC meeting - 2013-04-24 19:00 UTC
Date Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:29:37 GMT
I hardly think we can call it the status-quo, when we've almost never done
it.

Perhaps the reason it hasn't happened is because it is easy to forget. ;) I
don't know though. You'd have to ask Dave, our benevolent meeting chair.

This is the first time I've properly articulated my objections to the
proposal. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts.

On Wednesday, 24 April 2013, Jan Lehnardt wrote:

>
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 16:58 , Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Well, I don't like the idea of alternating times. I think it will become
> > confusing and hard to plan for, and I think we will see less
> participation
> > as a result. I also think that meetings held at 13:00 UTC will have very
> > few participants. This becomes a problem when the meeting is important
> > because of its proximity to another event (such as a release) because we
> > have a bunch of people in the US that cannot possibly be expected to
> attend
> > at that time.
> >
> > The current situation is:
> >
> > Meeting at 20:00 UTC, the optimal amount of people are able to
> participate.
> >
> > We're proposing:
> >
> > Meeting occasionally at 20:00 UTC and occasionally at 13:00 UTC. Many
> > people unable to participate half the time. Meeting times become
> irregular
> > and hard to plan for in general.
>
> The status-quo is actually that we alternate 14:00 UTC and 20:00 UTC on a
> weekly
> basis. It is predictable and easy to plan. In practice this only has
> happened
> twice. I don’t understand why we stick to what was agreed to in the past
> and
> instead discuss this every month or so without actually giving the plan a
> shot.
>
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > This is a sub-optimal solution.
> >
> > What is the problem we are trying to solve?
> >
> > I don't think it's "how can we organise an IRC meeting so that everyone
> can
> > attend?" (That pre-supposes the solution.)
> >
> > I think it is more like "how do we get input from everyone?"
> >
> > I think another avenue for us to explore might be to consider that when
> we
> > post the minutes to the list, that's not the end of the conversation.
> >
> > There are two points at which you can contribute to the meeting, without
> > actually being there:
> >
> > 1) In reply to the meeting reminder. We have invited this every time, but
> > only a few people so far have actually added things to the agenda via
> this
> > method. I would suggest that if people can't make the 20:00 UTC time, but
> > they have something they want to add to the agenda, or they have some
> > information to share with the group (like a status update), then they
> post
> > it at this point.
> >
> > 2) In reply to the minutes. As we saw with the action item Benoit brought
> > up a week or so ago, I jumped right in, and started having a discussion
> > about it on the mailing list. I had missed that particular meeting, but
> > read the minutes, and started a discussion.
> >
> > In my mind, this should be sufficient to ensure that everybody can input
> > into the meetings.
> >
> > Perhaps the 20:00 UTC time is not the most optimal solution. (i.e. The
> time
> > when most people in the project can participate.) I note that the board
> > meets at 17:30 UTC. I think that's a valid question, and one we
> > should examine if it looks like there might be a better time. But I
> believe
> > that we should pick one, single optimal time for everybody, and then work
> > on ways to ensure that people who miss the meeting (either because of
> life
> > getting in the way, or timezones) can contribute without impediment.
> >
> >
> > On 24 April 2013 15:14, Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 April 2013 16:02, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>> What about having two meetings?
> >>
> >> Hi Noah,
> >>
> >> We previously said we would alternate times "regularly" but I think
> >> we've only done that twice. For all the obvious reasons I'd prefer not
> >> to double up. What's the constraint?
> >>
> >> A+
> >> Dave
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > NS
>
>

-- 
NS

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message