On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:35:05AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > There has been a bit of tension lately around creating IRC meetings. > I've been busy[1] cleaning up unused slots and defragmenting biweekly > ones to open up possibilities, but truth is, even with those changes > approved, there will still be a number of time slots that are full: > > Tuesday 14utc -- only biweekly available > Tuesday 16utc -- full > Wednesday 15utc -- only biweekly available > Wednesday 16utc -- full > Thursday 14utc -- only biweekly available > Thursday 17utc -- only biweekly available > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:dec2016-cleanup > > Historically, we maintained a limited number of meeting rooms in order > to encourage teams to spread around and limit conflicts. This worked for > a time, but those days I feel like team members don't have that much > flexibility in picking a time that works for everyone. If the miracle > slot that works for everyone is not available on the calendar, they tend > to move the meeting elsewhere (private IRC channel, Slack, Hangouts) > rather than change time to use a less-busy slot. > > So I'm now wondering how much that artificial scarcity policy is hurting > us more than it helps us. I'm still convinced it's very valuable to have > a number of "meetings rooms" that you can lurk in and be available for > pings, without having to join hundreds of channels where meetings might > happen. But I'm not sure anymore that maintaining an artificial scarcity > is helpful in limiting conflicts, and I can definitely see that it > pushes some meetings away from the meeting channels, defeating their > main purpose. > TL;DR: > - is it time for us to add #openstack-meeting-5 ? > - should we more proactively add meeting channels in the future ?
Do we have any real data on just how many contributors really do lurk in the meeting rooms permanently, as opposed to merely joining rooms at start of the meeting & leaving immediately thereafter ? Likewise any data on how many contributors are actively participate in meetings across different projects, vs silod just in their own one project ? If the latter is in the clear majority, then you might as well just have #openstack-meeting-$PROJECT and thus mostly avoid the problem of conflicting demands for a limited set of channels. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| __________________________________________________________________________ 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