On 11/20/2007 02:32 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:26:02 +0100
Christopher Aillon <caillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While I was unable to attend at this time anyway, I am very much
annoyed at the lack of notice from a global perspective. It is not
unreasonable for someone to make a 9pm meeting. It *is* unreasonable
to expect someone to be reading mail during dinner hours to find out
about it. The reason that the meeting was rescheduled was because of
a U.S. specific holiday, and in the process, made it very difficult
for non-Americans that wanted to attend to do so. We didn't push
back because we deemed the topics of enough importance. Which
underscores the importance for giving people fair chances at
showing. Do we seriously need to institute a policy for a minimum
amount of notice with meeting schedule changes? Or can we start
thinking like a global distribution?
There was a poll site set up for who could make what meeting times. A
time was picked that had the most people available marked, and those
people were specifically contacted again to make sure they could make
it.
Yes, I participated in the poll. But there is a reason why we have the
meeting in a public forum. Not everyone who cares is one of the 13
FESCo members.
Also, _all_ FESCo members should have been contacted in case plans
changed. Reading the lists, it appears yours did and were not able to
make it when you originally said you would. Mine could have in theory
as well, but since I did not initially say I was available, I did not
receive a direct notice, and I am equally not happy about that. :-)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
