gord chung wrote: > maybe we should shift more emphasis to ML? working with non-native > English speaking companies, i know they are very interested in > participating but considering the oft hectic pace of the 'live' > meetings, they tend to be viewers as they can't get their ideas into > English fast enough.
Well, arguably we already do have cross-project topics discussed on the ML. Most of the topics raised there are coming from a ML thread and/or reviews. The trick is that sometimes: - people ignore the thread. When the topic is raised at the cross-project meeting they suddenly realize they missed it and have an opinion on it - the thread stalls without a clear next action. Talking live about it is a great way to either check for consensus or give it a second life - the thread goes nowhere. Factions talk past each other and no consensus is within sight. Having less latency for a few exchanges before going back to the thread is useful. This is why for complex discussions I advocate for lasagna-style progress: layers of ML threads with meaty IRC meetings in between. Maybe we should be more explicit about that: require ML discussion before putting a topic up, and escalate to meeting only in one of the 3 above cases. Then the meeting slot time is more like a booked empty slot (or set of slots) in everyone's calendar where we can have direct discussions on topics that otherwise don't seem to go anywhere on the ML. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
