Re: [openstack-dev] [swg][tc] Moving Stewardship Working Group meeting

[Colette Alexander]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Jim Rollenhagen 
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Thierry Carrez 
> wrote:
>
>> Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:15 AM, John Garbutt > > > wrote:
>> >> In the absence of tooling, could we replace the meeting with weekly
>> >> email reporting current working streams, and whats planned next?
>> That
>> >> would include fixing any problems we face trying to work well
>> >> together.
>> >
>> > This is a good idea, I've quite liked cdent's weekly placement update,
>> > maybe something similar, and others can chime in with their own
>> updates/etc.
>>
>> I was thinking we could use a status board to track the various
>> activities / objectives / threads. As part of the status board the
>> leader of each thread would provide a $time_interval update by a given
>> deadline, and the workgroup chair would collect them all and post them
>> (to a single email) on the ML.
>>
>
> ++
>
>

I'm fine with this - I actually think it would be helpful for me, since
it's more likely I'll make an hour of time here and there throughout a week
to get work and updates done. I'm especially fine with it if it means more
participation in the SWG from the community because we move towards other
ways of collaborating that allow for time zone/scheduling differences.



>
>> The update could have predetermined sections: current status / progress,
>> assigned actions, open questions... If the open questions can't get
>> solved in the ML thread resulting from the $time_interval update, *then*
>> schedule an ad-hoc discussion on #openstack-swg between interested
>> parties.
>>
>> In terms of tooling, we can start by using a wiki page for tracking and
>> updates snippets. We can use framadate.org for ad-hoc discussion
>> scheduling.
>>
>
> Any reason not to just use storyboard for tracking? AIUI, it gives us a
> status
> board for free.
>
> // jim
>

I'm fine with trying whatever the group prefers for a couple of weeks,
assessing, and then continuing with something else or trying a different
tool.


I think we should probably just cancel today's meeting, though, since it
seems like most people are pretty booked anyhow.


-colette



>
>
>>
>> Combined with extra activity on the channel, I think that would preserve
>> all 3 attributes of the meeting (especially the $time_interval regular
>> kick in the butt to make continuous progress).
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>
>> 
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib
>> e
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> __
> 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
>
>
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [swg][tc] Moving Stewardship Working Group meeting

[Jim Rollenhagen]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:15 AM, John Garbutt  > > wrote:
> >> In the absence of tooling, could we replace the meeting with weekly
> >> email reporting current working streams, and whats planned next?
> That
> >> would include fixing any problems we face trying to work well
> >> together.
> >
> > This is a good idea, I've quite liked cdent's weekly placement update,
> > maybe something similar, and others can chime in with their own
> updates/etc.
>
> I was thinking we could use a status board to track the various
> activities / objectives / threads. As part of the status board the
> leader of each thread would provide a $time_interval update by a given
> deadline, and the workgroup chair would collect them all and post them
> (to a single email) on the ML.
>

++


>
> The update could have predetermined sections: current status / progress,
> assigned actions, open questions... If the open questions can't get
> solved in the ML thread resulting from the $time_interval update, *then*
> schedule an ad-hoc discussion on #openstack-swg between interested parties.
>
> In terms of tooling, we can start by using a wiki page for tracking and
> updates snippets. We can use framadate.org for ad-hoc discussion
> scheduling.
>

Any reason not to just use storyboard for tracking? AIUI, it gives us a
status
board for free.

// jim


>
> Combined with extra activity on the channel, I think that would preserve
> all 3 attributes of the meeting (especially the $time_interval regular
> kick in the butt to make continuous progress).
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __
> 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
>
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [swg][tc] Moving Stewardship Working Group meeting

[Thierry Carrez]

Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:15 AM, John Garbutt  > wrote:
>> In the absence of tooling, could we replace the meeting with weekly
>> email reporting current working streams, and whats planned next? That
>> would include fixing any problems we face trying to work well
>> together.
> 
> This is a good idea, I've quite liked cdent's weekly placement update,
> maybe something similar, and others can chime in with their own updates/etc.

I was thinking we could use a status board to track the various
activities / objectives / threads. As part of the status board the
leader of each thread would provide a $time_interval update by a given
deadline, and the workgroup chair would collect them all and post them
(to a single email) on the ML.

The update could have predetermined sections: current status / progress,
assigned actions, open questions... If the open questions can't get
solved in the ML thread resulting from the $time_interval update, *then*
schedule an ad-hoc discussion on #openstack-swg between interested parties.

In terms of tooling, we can start by using a wiki page for tracking and
updates snippets. We can use framadate.org for ad-hoc discussion scheduling.

Combined with extra activity on the channel, I think that would preserve
all 3 attributes of the meeting (especially the $time_interval regular
kick in the butt to make continuous progress).

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [swg][tc] Moving Stewardship Working Group meeting

[Jim Rollenhagen]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:15 AM, John Garbutt  wrote:

> On 15 March 2017 at 09:50, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> > Colette Alexander wrote:
> >> Currently the Stewardship Working Group meetings every other Thursday at
> >> 1400 UTC.
> >>
> >> We've had a couple of pings from folks who are interested in joining us
> >> for meetings that live in US Pacific Time, and that Thursday time isn't
> >> terribly conducive to them being able to make meetings. So - the
> >> question is when to move it to, if we can.
> >>
> >> A quick glance at the rest of the Thursday schedule shows the 1500 and
> >> 1600 time slots available (in #openstack-meeting I believe). I'm
> >> hesitant to go beyond that in the daytime because we also need to
> >> accommodate attendees in Western Europe.
> >>
> >> Thoughts on whether either of those works from SWG members and anyone
> >> who might like to drop in? We can also look into having meetings once a
> >> week, and potentially alternating times between the two to help
> >> accommodate the spread of people.
> >>
> >> Let me know what everyone thinks - and for this week I'll see anyone who
> >> can make it at 1400 UTC on Thursday.
> >
> > Alternatively, we could try to come up with ways to avoid regular
> > meetings altogether. That would certainly be a bit experimental, but the
> > SWG sounds like a nice place to experiment with more inclusive ways of
> > coordination.
> >
> > IMHO meetings serve three purposes. The first is to provide a regular
> > rhythm and force people to make progress on stated objectives. You give
> > status updates, lay down actions, make sure nothing is stuck. The second
> > is to provide quick progress on specific topics -- by having multiple
> > people around at the same time you can quickly iterate through ideas and
> > options. The third is to expose an entry point to new contributors: if
> > they are interested they will look for a meeting to get the temperature
> > on a workgroup and potentially jump in.
> >
> > I'm certainly guilty of being involved in too many things, so purpose
> > (1) is definitely helpful to force me to make regular progress, but it
> > also feels like something a good status board could do better, and async.
> >
> > The second purpose is definitely helpful, but I'd say that ad-hoc
> > meetings (or discussions in a IRC channel) are a better way to achieve
> > the result. You just need to come up with a one-time meeting point where
> > all the interested parties will be around, and that's usually easier
> > than to pick a weekly time that will work for everyone all the time. We
> > just need to invent tooling that would facilitate organizing and
> > tracking those.
> >
> > For the third, I think using IRC channels as the on-boarding mechanism
> > is more efficient -- meetings are noisy, busy and not so great for
> > newcomers. If we ramped up channel activity (and generally made IRC
> > channels more discoverable), I don't think any newcomer would ever use
> > meetings to "tune in".
> >
> > Am I missing something that only meetings could ever provide ? If not it
> > feels like the SWG could experiment with meeting-less coordination by
> > replacing it with better async status coordination / reminder tools,
> > some framework to facilitate ad-hoc discussions, and ramping up activity
> > in IRC channel. If that ends up being successful, we could promote our
> > techniques to the rest of OpenStack.
>
> +1 for trying out a meeting-less group ourselves.
>

I'm also +1.


>
> In the absence of tooling, could we replace the meeting with weekly
> email reporting current working streams, and whats planned next? That
> would include fixing any problems we face trying to work well
> together.
>

This is a good idea, I've quite liked cdent's weekly placement update,
maybe something similar, and others can chime in with their own updates/etc.

// 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [swg][tc] Moving Stewardship Working Group meeting

[John Garbutt]

On 15 March 2017 at 09:50, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Colette Alexander wrote:
>> Currently the Stewardship Working Group meetings every other Thursday at
>> 1400 UTC.
>>
>> We've had a couple of pings from folks who are interested in joining us
>> for meetings that live in US Pacific Time, and that Thursday time isn't
>> terribly conducive to them being able to make meetings. So - the
>> question is when to move it to, if we can.
>>
>> A quick glance at the rest of the Thursday schedule shows the 1500 and
>> 1600 time slots available (in #openstack-meeting I believe). I'm
>> hesitant to go beyond that in the daytime because we also need to
>> accommodate attendees in Western Europe.
>>
>> Thoughts on whether either of those works from SWG members and anyone
>> who might like to drop in? We can also look into having meetings once a
>> week, and potentially alternating times between the two to help
>> accommodate the spread of people.
>>
>> Let me know what everyone thinks - and for this week I'll see anyone who
>> can make it at 1400 UTC on Thursday.
>
> Alternatively, we could try to come up with ways to avoid regular
> meetings altogether. That would certainly be a bit experimental, but the
> SWG sounds like a nice place to experiment with more inclusive ways of
> coordination.
>
> IMHO meetings serve three purposes. The first is to provide a regular
> rhythm and force people to make progress on stated objectives. You give
> status updates, lay down actions, make sure nothing is stuck. The second
> is to provide quick progress on specific topics -- by having multiple
> people around at the same time you can quickly iterate through ideas and
> options. The third is to expose an entry point to new contributors: if
> they are interested they will look for a meeting to get the temperature
> on a workgroup and potentially jump in.
>
> I'm certainly guilty of being involved in too many things, so purpose
> (1) is definitely helpful to force me to make regular progress, but it
> also feels like something a good status board could do better, and async.
>
> The second purpose is definitely helpful, but I'd say that ad-hoc
> meetings (or discussions in a IRC channel) are a better way to achieve
> the result. You just need to come up with a one-time meeting point where
> all the interested parties will be around, and that's usually easier
> than to pick a weekly time that will work for everyone all the time. We
> just need to invent tooling that would facilitate organizing and
> tracking those.
>
> For the third, I think using IRC channels as the on-boarding mechanism
> is more efficient -- meetings are noisy, busy and not so great for
> newcomers. If we ramped up channel activity (and generally made IRC
> channels more discoverable), I don't think any newcomer would ever use
> meetings to "tune in".
>
> Am I missing something that only meetings could ever provide ? If not it
> feels like the SWG could experiment with meeting-less coordination by
> replacing it with better async status coordination / reminder tools,
> some framework to facilitate ad-hoc discussions, and ramping up activity
> in IRC channel. If that ends up being successful, we could promote our
> techniques to the rest of OpenStack.

+1 for trying out a meeting-less group ourselves.

In the absence of tooling, could we replace the meeting with weekly
email reporting current working streams, and whats planned next? That
would include fixing any problems we face trying to work well
together.

John

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [swg][tc] Moving Stewardship Working Group meeting

[Thierry Carrez]

Colette Alexander wrote:
> Currently the Stewardship Working Group meetings every other Thursday at
> 1400 UTC. 
> 
> We've had a couple of pings from folks who are interested in joining us
> for meetings that live in US Pacific Time, and that Thursday time isn't
> terribly conducive to them being able to make meetings. So - the
> question is when to move it to, if we can.
> 
> A quick glance at the rest of the Thursday schedule shows the 1500 and
> 1600 time slots available (in #openstack-meeting I believe). I'm
> hesitant to go beyond that in the daytime because we also need to
> accommodate attendees in Western Europe. 
> 
> Thoughts on whether either of those works from SWG members and anyone
> who might like to drop in? We can also look into having meetings once a
> week, and potentially alternating times between the two to help
> accommodate the spread of people.
> 
> Let me know what everyone thinks - and for this week I'll see anyone who
> can make it at 1400 UTC on Thursday.

Alternatively, we could try to come up with ways to avoid regular
meetings altogether. That would certainly be a bit experimental, but the
SWG sounds like a nice place to experiment with more inclusive ways of
coordination.

IMHO meetings serve three purposes. The first is to provide a regular
rhythm and force people to make progress on stated objectives. You give
status updates, lay down actions, make sure nothing is stuck. The second
is to provide quick progress on specific topics -- by having multiple
people around at the same time you can quickly iterate through ideas and
options. The third is to expose an entry point to new contributors: if
they are interested they will look for a meeting to get the temperature
on a workgroup and potentially jump in.

I'm certainly guilty of being involved in too many things, so purpose
(1) is definitely helpful to force me to make regular progress, but it
also feels like something a good status board could do better, and async.

The second purpose is definitely helpful, but I'd say that ad-hoc
meetings (or discussions in a IRC channel) are a better way to achieve
the result. You just need to come up with a one-time meeting point where
all the interested parties will be around, and that's usually easier
than to pick a weekly time that will work for everyone all the time. We
just need to invent tooling that would facilitate organizing and
tracking those.

For the third, I think using IRC channels as the on-boarding mechanism
is more efficient -- meetings are noisy, busy and not so great for
newcomers. If we ramped up channel activity (and generally made IRC
channels more discoverable), I don't think any newcomer would ever use
meetings to "tune in".

Am I missing something that only meetings could ever provide ? If not it
feels like the SWG could experiment with meeting-less coordination by
replacing it with better async status coordination / reminder tools,
some framework to facilitate ad-hoc discussions, and ramping up activity
in IRC channel. If that ends up being successful, we could promote our
techniques to the rest of OpenStack.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

[openstack-dev] [swg][tc] Moving Stewardship Working Group meeting

[Colette Alexander]

Hi there!

Currently the Stewardship Working Group meetings every other Thursday at
1400 UTC.

We've had a couple of pings from folks who are interested in joining us for
meetings that live in US Pacific Time, and that Thursday time isn't
terribly conducive to them being able to make meetings. So - the question
is when to move it to, if we can.

A quick glance at the rest of the Thursday schedule shows the 1500 and 1600
time slots available (in #openstack-meeting I believe). I'm hesitant to go
beyond that in the daytime because we also need to accommodate attendees in
Western Europe.

Thoughts on whether either of those works from SWG members and anyone who
might like to drop in? We can also look into having meetings once a week,
and potentially alternating times between the two to help accommodate the
spread of people.

Let me know what everyone thinks - and for this week I'll see anyone who
can make it at 1400 UTC on Thursday.

Thank you!

-colette
__
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