On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 06:05:54AM -0800, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:16:34PM -0500, Ruby Loo wrote: > > On 10 November 2015 at 12:08, Dmitry Tantsur <dtant...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On 11/10/2015 05:45 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> In the last Ironic meeting [1] we started a discussion about whether > > >> we need to have a mid-cycle meeting for the Mitaka cycle or not. Some > > >> ideas about the format of the midcycle were presented in that > > >> conversation and this email is just a follow up on that conversation. > > >> > > >> The ideas presented were: > > >> > > >> 1. Normal mid-cycle > > >> > > >> Same format as the previous ones, the meetup will happen in a specific > > >> venue somewhere in the world. > > >> > > > > > > I would really want to see you all as often as possible. However, I don't > > > see much value in proper face-to-face mid-cycles as compared to improving > > > our day-to-day online communications. > > > > > > +2. > > > > My take on mid-cycles is that if folks want to have one, that is fine, I > > might not attend :) > > > > My preference is 4) no mid-cycle -- and try to work more effectively with > > people in different locations and time zones. > > ++ that was part of my thought process when I proposed not having an > official midcycle. > > Another idea I floated last week was to do a virtual midcycle of sorts. > Treat it like a normal midcycle in that everyone tells their management > "I'm out for 3-4 days for the midcycle", but they don't travel anywhere. > We come up with an agenda, see if there's any planning/syncing work to > do, or if it's all just hacking on code/reviews. > > Then we can set up some hangouts (or similar) to get people in the same > "room" working on things. Time zones will get weird, but we tend to > split into smaller groups at the midcycle anyway; this is just more > timezone-aligned. We can also find windows where time zones overlap when > we want to go across those boundaries. Disclaimer: people may need to > work some weird hours to do this well. > > I think this might get a little bit bumpy, but if it goes relatively > well we can try to improve on it for the future. Worst case, it's a > total failure and is roughly equivalent to the "no midcycle" option.
I sent a new idea to openstack-dev, and nobody has opinions? :P I'd like to get consensus on this soon, please do reply if you have thoughts on this. // jim __________________________________________________________________________ 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