On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/13/2014 01:09 PM, Dan Smith wrote: >> Expecting cores to be at these sorts of things seems pretty reasonable >> to me, given the usefulness (and gravity) of the discussions we've been >> having so far. Companies with more cores will have to send more or make >> some hard decisions, but I don't want to cut back on the meetings until >> their value becomes unjustified. > > I disagree. IMO, *expecting* people to travel, potentially across the > globe, 4 times a year is an unreasonable expectation, and quite > uncharacteristic of open source projects. If we can't figure out a way > to have the most important conversations in a way that is inclusive of > everyone, we're failing with our processes.
I am a bit confused by this stance to be honest. You yourself said when you were Icehouse PTL that you wanted cores to come to the summit. What changed? > By all means, if a subset wants to meet up and make progress on some > things, I think that's fine. I don't think anyone think it's not > useful. However, discussions need to be summarized and taken back to > the list for discussion before decisions are made. That's not the way > things are trending here, and I think that's a problem. The etherpad for the meetup has extensive notes. Any summary I write will basically be those notes in prose. What are you looking for in a summary that isn't in the etherpad? There also wasn't a summary of the Icehouse midcycle produced that I can find. Whilst I am happy to do one for Juno, its a requirement that I hadn't planned for, and is therefore taking me some time to retrofit. I think we should chalk the request for summaries up experience and talk through how to better provide such things at future meetups. Michael -- Rackspace Australia _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
