[opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for the dovetail meeting

2016-08-10 Thread Tianhongbo
Hi Chris: Yes, we agreed to use the opnfv-meeting. But now, there is a requirements that all people like to talk in the IRC all time for dovetail like done in the releng or yardstick. If we use opnfv-meeting, we cannot do that. That is the problem. Best Regards hongbo 发件人: Christopher Price [m

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for the dovetail meeting

2016-08-10 Thread Christopher Price
Ok, interesting no-one mentioned that on the last meeting.  Can we discuss it as a group on Friday before changing what was agreed 5 days ago?  (Note: releng did create it’s own channel but no longer uses it, rather they work on community channels as separate channels are at times not very

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for the dovetail meeting

2016-08-10 Thread Dave Neary
Hi, I agree with Chris. There is also a very well suited channel for general discussion, not limited to Dovetail, #opnfv - I propose we use that if there are topics that need real-time interaction. Also, please remember the old Apache dictum: "If it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't ha

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for the dovetail meeting

2016-08-10 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I support fewer distinct channels also. If it turns out we have an adhoc meeting conflict, we can setup #opnfv-alt1/2/3 ala OpenStack, ping others and move conversations there as needed. Just like CB radio. On Aug 10, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Dave Neary wrote: Hi, I agree with Chris. There is also