On 4/29/2026 7:44 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 12:31:06PM -0700, Pierrick Bouvier wrote: >> On 4/24/2026 8:40 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 24/4/26 16:55, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> >>>> The KVM/QEMU community call is at: >>>> >>>> https://meet.jit.si/kvmcallmeeting >>>> @ >>>> 28/04/2026 14:00 UTC >>>> >>>> Are there any agenda items for the sync-up? >>> >>> I'd like to have a discussion with Stefan and Pierrick about the >>> possible improvements that can be done on our CI system, and >>> review our git-forge use in general. >>> >> >> That's a nice topic I would be happy to talk about with all of you. >> >>> Pierrick: Stefan is available this Tuesday, are you? >>> >> >> It would be 6am on my side, which is too early sorry. >> >> However, I would be very happy to talk about it in private with Stefan and >> you, and other people interested in this specific topic. >> >> I just feel it will be a conversation that may derail very easily with many >> people participating, and it would be better to restrict it to people very >> enthusiastic about it first. >> >> Once we have a concrete plan, we can share it more widely and deal with >> critics and see what can really be done. > > Can we please keep the discussions in public. Yes, sometimes the threads > can derail, but that's just a characteristic of our open collaboration > process. Switching to private design and then presenting a solution is > not the way to work in the community. >
Sorry for the misunderstanding. The goal was not to do anything in "secret" among a chosen group of people, but to restrict it to people who are enthusiastic about this change. Anyone (including you :)) who wants to join in early conversations is welcome. See it as working group in the wider community. This way, we can focus on proper benefits/downsides of the approach, instead of having to manage fear of change. It's just a different audience to approach this topic. As well, the format, an oral conversation, is not a good match for a subject that might derail easily. It would work better with a written conversation, but we need a first email with content to start this. That's why we need a first concrete "plan"/"proposal", to get something to start from. It's not supposed to be a final solution, quite the opposite actually. > With regards, > Daniel > Regards, Pierrick
