On 07/12/16 14:29 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Dolph Mathews wrote:
[...]
I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
majority
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-12-02 11:35:05 +0100:
> 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
> ping
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> There was a thread in the past discussing renaming -alt to -2 but it
> concluded that it was not worth the hassle (losing the 489 people
> hanging there).
>
I was thinking maybe #openstack-meeting-alt could be dedicated in the
future to "A
John Villalovos wrote:
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling
> pressure
>
>
> Any reason it isn't #openstack-meeting-2 ?
>
> The -2 channel is owned by openstackinfra.
Currently we have:
#openstack-meeting
#openstack-meeting-alt
#op
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling
> pressure
>
Any reason it isn't #openstack-meeting-2 ?
The -2 channel is owned by openstackinfra.
Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:29:03PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> So how about:
>> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
>> - we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
>> to (and show them all on the meeti
On 2016-12-07 12:14:06 -0600 (-0600), Ian Cordasco wrote:
[...]
> So I'm all for non-official projects using their own channels for
> meetings. My only wish (as someone working on a non-official
> project) would be that we could use meeting bot the same way we
> would in a meeting channel.
It's th
-Original Message-
From: Thierry Carrez
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Date: December 7, 2016 at 07:30:40
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?
> Dolph Mathews wr
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:29:03PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
> So how about:
> - we enable an #openstack-meeting-5 to instantly relieve scheduling pressure
> - we allow teams to hold meetings in their project channel if they want
> to (and show them all on the meeting agenda through the irc-m
Dolph Mathews wrote:
> [...]
> I think it honestly reflects our current breakdown of contributors &
> collaboration. The artificial scarcity model only helps a vocal minority
> with cross-project focus, and just results in odd meeting times for the
> majority of projects that don't hold primetime m
2016-12-05 12:51 GMT-06:00 Paul Belanger :
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:15AM +0100, Luigi Toscano wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> > But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
>> > really need to be in a separate -alt room for t
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:15AM +0100, Luigi Toscano wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
> > really need to be in a separate -alt room for those when we have the
> > channel and anyone tha
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 8:49 PM Tony Breeds wrote:
> 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 o
On 2016-12-05 08:43:38 +0100 (+0100), Andreas Jaeger wrote:
[...]
> Accessbot is just permissions - this is not relevant.
[...]
To clarify, our accessbot never joins any channels at all. It only
connects to the server and interacts with ChanServ to configure
permissions for the channels listed. Th
On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:42:31 CET Matt Riedemann wrote:
> But like we recently talked about the stable team meetings, we don't
> really need to be in a separate -alt room for those when we have the
> channel and anyone that cares about stable enough to be in the meeting
> is already in that c
On 2016-12-05 05:18, Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:
>
>> Do we know how many of the project level rooms currently have bots? I know I
>> ran into an issue that one of the bots was at its maximum (128 rooms) and,
>> therefore, I concerned about the in
> On Dec 4, 2016, at 11:18 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:
>>
>> Do we know how many of the project level rooms currently have bots? I know I
>> ran into an issue that one of the bots was at its maximum (128 rooms) and,
>> therefore, I conc
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:07:21PM -0500, Shamail wrote:
> Do we know how many of the project level rooms currently have bots? I know I
> ran into an issue that one of the bots was at its maximum (128 rooms) and,
> therefore, I concerned about the infrastructure necessary to support too many
> ne
> On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
>
>> 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 o
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
> a
evelopment Mailing List
Subject: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?
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
On 12/2/2016 8:38 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
Thierry, when we were adding the #openstack-swg group, we had this
conversation and I observed that my own preference would be for a project's
meetings to be in that projects room. It makes it easier to then search for
logs for something (say SWG related)
On 2016-12-02 11:35:05 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> 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, w
ber 2, 2016 7:52 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Creating a new IRC meeting room ?
>
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > Do we have any real data on just how many contributors really do lurk
> > in the meeting rooms permanently, as o
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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 ?
There are currently 488 permanent residents on #openstack-meeting, 2
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
> a
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
