On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Armando M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 12 January 2016 at 20:07, Kyle Mestery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Doug Wiegley < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don’t think it ninja merged. It had plenty of reviews, and was open >>> during international hours. I don’t have any issue there. >>> >>> I don’t like the crazy early meeting, so I set out to prove it didn’t >>> matter: >>> >>> Average attendance before rotating: 20.7 people >>> Average attendance on Monday afternoons (U.S. time): 20.9 >>> Average attendance on Tuesday morning (U.S. time): 23.7 >>> >>> Stupid data, that’s not what I wanted to see. >>> >>> I haven’t yet correlated people to which meeting time yet, but >>> attendance was slightly up during the crazy early hated time, across the >>> 1.25 years it was running (started 9/9/14). This is just people saying >>> something; lurkers can just read the logs. >>> >>> Data is from eavesdrop meeting logs, if anyone else wants to crunch it. >>> >>> Since it's ridiculous to assume people are required to attend this >> meeting, one easy solution to this would be to go back to the rotating >> meeting and have a different chair for the Tuesday morning PST meeting. I >> think rotating chairs for this meeting would be a good idea for a multitude >> of reasons (spreads the pain, lets others have a chance at the pulpit, >> grooms future meeting leaders, etc.). >> > > With this suggestion you seem to imply that I only dropped the biweekly > schedule because I didn't want to run the Tuesday ones, and that's unfair :) > > I would never imply such a thing, whether or not it would be true. :) > Albeit I am not overly happy to wake up at 5.30am (in my timezone), I have > done it so far because I believe it's my duty. That said, when I see that > the nearly the same people show up (and meaningfully contribute) at both, > then I'd rather have the majority of us have a "simpler" life. > > I have never been a fan of the biweekly schedule because it incentivises > people not to turn up half the time (I certainly wouldn't have an incentive > to wake up at ~6am if I didn't have to chair the meeting), however certain > topics are only discussed once, and missing a meeting is a missed > opportunity to actively contribute during meeting hours. > > Bear in mind that no-one is taking away the opportunity from people to > contribute in the openstack-neutron channel and/or offline on the ML. I > personally rely on it quite a bit. > > Absolutely. My main point was that spreading the load of things by perhaps letting someone else run it may not be a bad idea. > Cheers, > Armando > > >> >> Thanks, >> Kyle >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> doug >>> >>> >>> > On Jan 12, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Tony Breeds <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:27:30PM +0100, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: >>> >> Agreed with Gary on behalf of my European compatriots. (Note that I >>> >> *personally* +1’d the patch because I don’t mind, doing late hours >>> anyway; >>> >> but it’s sad it was ninja merged without giving any chance for those >>> from >>> >> affected timezones to express their concerns). >>> > >>> > So Ninja merged has a negative connotation that I refute. >>> > >>> > I merged it. It was judgment error, and I apologise for that. >>> > >>> > * I found and read through the list thread. >>> > * Saw only +1's yours included >>> > - known you'd be affected I used your +1 as a barometer >>> > >>> > My mistake was not noticing your request to leave the review open for >>> longer. >>> > >>> > I also noted in my review that reverting it is pretty low cost to back >>> it out >>> > if needed. >>> > >>> > I understand that the 'root cause' for this change was the yaml2ical >>> issue that >>> > stemmed from having 2 odd week in a row. We've fixed that [1]. I'm >>> also >>> > working a a more human concept of biweekly meeting in yaml2ical. >>> > >>> > Tony >>> > [1] the next time it could have been a problem is 2020/2021 ;P >>> > >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> > Unsubscribe: >>> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: >>> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
