On 2018-11-21 06:49:31 +1100 (+1100), Ian Wienand wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:09:29AM -0800, Clark Boylan wrote: > > Both ideas seem sound to me and I think we should try to implement > > them for the Infra team. I propose that we require agenda updates 24 > > hours prior to the meeting start time and if there are no agenda > > updates we cancel the meeting. Curious to hear if others think this > > will be helpful and if 24 hours is enough lead time to be helpful. > > My concern here is that we have standing items of priority tasks > updates that are essentially always there, and action item follow-up > from the prior meeting. Personally I often find them very useful. [...]
Back when I was chairing these meetings regularly, I urged participants to add info within each priority effort (or added some myself) in advance of the meeting. If there was nothing called out in our agenda under a given priority effort entry, I skipped over it. Going back to something like that could help us figure out when a meeting is warranted rather than ending up as a series of "nothing new here" comments. But this aside, I think the frequency with which we'd end up skipping meetings (based on history of our agenda updates) will be low enough that we shouldn't really focus on that part of the proposal. I agree what's important is having our agenda nailed down in advance so people can decide whether or not it's important for them to attend. We do sometimes skip meetings for various reasons anyway, so rarely announcing we won't hold one because nobody has any updates or topics on the agenda feels like an incentive for people to find relevant topics so that doesn't happen often. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra