+1 for weekly -- if this results in diminishing returns we can always reset to biweekly.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Kapil Arya <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for bi-weekly. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jan Schlicht <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 for weekly. > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Artem Harutyunyan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 for weekly. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:41 AM, haosdent <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 for bi-weekly > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Michael Park <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> We discussed whether the community syncs should be weekly or > bi-weekly > > > >> (once every 2 weeks). > > > >> > > > >> There were differing opinions on the subject during the community > sync > > > >> today. > > > >> > > > >> An argument for weekly: meetings can be shorter and missing a > meeting > > > won't > > > >> be as big a deal as missing a longer meeting. > > > >> > > > >> An argument for bi-weekly: there are many people involved in these > > > >> meetings, we should keep it infrequent so that it reduces people's > > time > > > >> commitments. > > > >> > > > >> This email is intended to capture your +1s or other ideas you might > > > have! > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> > > > >> MPark. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Haosdent Huang > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Jan Schlicht* > > Distributed Systems Engineer, Mesosphere > > >
