On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Zach Oglesby <oglesbyzm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Zach Oglesby wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, John J. McDonough <wb8rcr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 09:25 -0400, Zach Oglesby wrote: >>> >> much as I value the input of Rudi and others in the AU, I think that >>> >> this will give us max participation, and the chance to have some great >>> >> folks step up and help out more. >>> > >>> > I think this only emphasizes the need to do more of our business on this >>> > list so that time zones aren't such an issue. I have to admit that I'm >>> > among the worst offenders in failing to bring issues here, and ignoring >>> > those that do make it here. >>> > >>> > I have this feeling that we could somehow make this work better, but I >>> > don't really know how. >>> > >>> > --McD >>> >>> I could not agree more, the meeting is good to be able to talk about >>> things in a more interactive mode, but we should try and handle more >>> stuff on the list. As it stands now our SOP is to being something up >>> on the list before adding it to the agenda for the meeting, if we >>> actually follow that model it should keep the conversation focused on >>> the list, and make the meeting a secondary means of communication. >> >> This is another reason I like to send zodbot's minutes (as well as the >> URLs he publishes) to the list. That way the flow looks like this: >> >> * Idea goes on list for discussion >> * After discussion, goes to meeting for general consensus/approval >> * Minutes indicate said consensus (using "#agreed <stuff>" and/or >> "#action <someone> <do the thing that means it was approved") >> * Minutes go to list in the email with (or following) URLs, and no one >> is surprised because topic was fairly and transparently handled >> >> -- >> Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ >> gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 >> http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ >> The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com > > > Sparks brought up another idea on IRC today that we may want to have > two meetings, so that we can accommodate people in all timezones. I > have two questions I would like to pose to this for everyone to give > input on. Do you like this idea, the second is what are individuals > views for the point of the meeting (i.e. what do you feel that we are > trying to accomplish by having weekly meetings). > > To me the meeting is helpful to get real-time communication with > people working on specific issues, by having two meetings we are able > to have this communication with more people, but we lose the ability > to make big decisions during a meeting. I will note that I don't think > thats really a bad thing, because as jjmcd has pointed out we need to > become more dependent on the list. > > Zach > Thanks to some changes in availability we now have a time that works for all time zones involved. So our new meeting time is going to be Mondays at 1 PM UTC, 9 AM EDT, 11 PM Brisbane, and 3 PM in CEST. I will update the wiki today, and check for availability in #fedora-meeting, if its not available we will move to an alternative room. Thank you everyone in helping to find a time that works for as many parties as possible. Zach -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
