Hi Paulo, I appreciate you bringing this up because I'm sure that means plenty are thinking the same thing. Let me give you a little context and history.
Last ApacheCon I proposed setting up a periodic zoom call to emulate some of the high bandwidth discussions that happen in-person. There was a good deal of discussion about how to do this appropriately, specifically by not creating isolated pockets of decision making. By providing yet another interaction method, increase participation in the project. I have seen these types of meetings work well in other OSS projects I'm involved with but it needs to be right for ASF guidelines. - No final decisions are made during the call. Any proposals go to the mailing list - Make a recording and post so nothing is exclusive - Post the chat transcripts (This is where the introverts interact and it can be quite lively) I consider our Zoom call as part of a package of how we interact. Jira - Code/feature specific discussion Mailing List - Official record of discussions and decisions Slack - Fast discussions with searchable text Video Call - High bandwidth discussions and presentations. Transactional in nature with an agenda. Having 25 people on a call to make a decision is not the intent or even reasonable. No matter what the setting is, even on email we don't get that many people weighing in on a topic. Using this meeting I posted as an example, the agenda is a discussion focused on the three unassigned Jiras. I expect we will have a few people that can directly speak about them and everyone else is a spectator or commenting in chat. The intent is to drive some activity on Jira. The timezone thing bothers me more than anything. I can't figure out how to make it completely equitable. The proposal as we formed the contributor meetings was to rotate the time to accommodate European timezones to Australia. The Kubernetes SIG had tried the 2 meetings in different halves of the world. Eventually consistent discussions don't work well. I don't want to go all Mandelorian and say "This is the way" so hopefully with this background we can continue the conversation. I always have considered this meeting to be a work in progress. Patrick On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 7:40 AM Paulo Motta <pauloricard...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the initiative, Patrick! > > I wonder if videochat is the most inclusive method of discussion, not only > due to time zone differences, as mentioned by Alex, but also because it > makes it harder for introverts from voicing their opinions. In my > experience video calls with more than 5 participants tend to be dominated > by extroverts. Do we lose anything by making this discussion via email? > > Erick, I don't think you're an outsider at all, you're a very active member > of the community. I don't think it's healthy for the project to have this > mentality of "inner circle of contributors" - as long as you want to > contribute - either by participating in the discussions, answering mailing > list questions, contributing documentation or code - you're an equally > valuable member of the community. > > Em sex., 25 de set. de 2020 às 06:14, Erick Ramirez < > erick.rami...@datastax.com> escreveu: > > > Very well said, Patrick! > > > > I'm not part of the inner circle of contributors so I'm a bit of an > > outsider. But as an advocate for Cassandra and the community, I'm > > optimistic that we will collectively get past this bump on the road, get > > 4.0 GA in 2020 and do bigger things in 2021. Cheers! > > >
