On 18 September 2015 at 00:50, Mike Perez <thin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16:16 Sep 16, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Anne Gentle wrote: >> > [...] >> > What are some of the problems with each layer? >> > >> > 1. weekly meeting: time zones, global reach, size of cross-project >> > concerns due to multiple projects being affected, another meeting for >> > PTLs to attend and pay attention to >> >> A lot of PTLs (or liaisons/lieutenants) skip the meeting, or will only >> attend when they have something to ask. Their time is precious and most >> of the time the meeting is not relevant for them, so why bother ? You >> have a few usual suspects attending all of them, but those people are >> cross-project-aware already so those are not the people that would >> benefit the most from the meeting. >> >> This partial attendance makes the meeting completely useless as a way to >> disseminate information. It makes the meeting mostly useless as a way to >> get general approval on cross-project specs. >> >> The meeting still is very useful IMHO to have more direct discussions on >> hot topics. So a ML discussion is flagged for direct discussion on IRC >> and we have a time slot already booked for that. > > Content for the cross project meeting are usually: > > * Not ready for decisions. > * Lack solutions. > > A proposal in steps of how cross project ideas start, to something ready for > the cross project IRC meeting, then the TC: > > 1) An idea starts from either or both: > a) Mailing list discussion. > b) A patch to a single project (until it's flagged that this patch could be > benefical to other projects) > 2) OpenStack Spec is proposed - discussions happen in gerrit from here on out. > Not on the mailing list. Keep encouraging discussions back to gerrit to > keep > everything in one place in order to avoid confusion with having to fish > for some random discussion elsewhere. > 3) Once enough consensus happens an agenda item is posted cross project IRC > meeting. > 4) Final discussions happen in the meeting. If consensus is still met by > interested parties who attend, it moves to TC. If there is a lack of > consensus it goes back to gerrit and repeat.
+1 That totally seems worth a try. Its extra process, but that should help drive the right conversations, in more efficient way. Thanks, johnthetubaguy > With this process, we should have less meetings. Less meetings is: > > * Awesome > * Makes this meeting more meaningful when it happens because decisions are > potentially going to be agreed and passed to the TC! > > If a cross project spec is not getting attention, don't post it to the list > for > attention. We get enough email and it'll probably be lost. Instead, let the > product working group recognize this and reach out to the projects that this > spec would benefit, to bring meaningful attention to the spec. > > For vertical alignment, interaction like IRC is not necessary. A very brief, > bullet point of collected information from projects that have anything > interesting is given in a weekly digest email to the list If anyone has > questions or wants more information, they can use their own time to ask that > project team. > > Potentially, if we kept everything to the spec on gerrit, and had the product > working group bringing needed attention to specs, we could eliminate the cross > project meeting. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev