openstack-poc team mailing list archive

[John Dickinson <me@xxxxxx>]

To be clear, I too am hesitant to mute people. I do not want muting to be seen as a tool used to silence discussion or opinions. I only see it as useful as a potential way to organize the discussion to allow for more clarity.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 9, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Paul Voccio <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> John,
> 
> We were just discussing this problem the other day. I'm hesitant to mute people, but the chaos is hard to follow. I often have to go back and read the logs to study what people's opinions are. I would be interested in trying some of your suggestions with the appropriate time for comments and discussion with the community. 
> 
> pvo
> 
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/09/2011 11:05 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
> > I have found the PPB meetings to be very disjointed and hard to
> > follow. A classic example is from our last meeting where 3 votes were
> > proposed and only 2 were voted on. At times we have several
> > conversations going on at once. Sometimes we vote, someone continues
> > the discussion, and then we revote. It's possible that people
> > offering support for an idea (with a +1) may be counted in a vote,
> > even if that person is not on the PPB. These sorts of things tend to
> > push the PPB meetings toward chaos.
> 
> I fully agree with this.
> 
> > 1) What if during the PPB meetings only those people on the PPB were
> > voiced and could speak? I absolutely do not want to discourage
> > valuable input from people not on the PPB, so I think this would
> > require meaningful time allowed for "public commentary" where anyone
> > and everyone can speak. One implementation would be to mute all
> > non-PPB members in the channel during a vote. Another implementation
> > would be to have designated non-PPB time about each topic, perhaps
> > after initial PPB member discussion. I think a more moderated
> > discussion could perhaps make better use of our limited meeting time
> > and help everyone be more clear on what is being discussed and voted
> > on.
> 
> This is not a terrible idea.
> 
> Also - I almost started hacking on something the other day and then
> realized that I have 50 bazillion more important things to do, BUT:
> 
> The meetbot used in #ubuntu-meeting has a voting feature. Similar to the
> #topic command we use with our meetbot, it has a #vote command. So like:
> 
> #vote Should we all only drink Dr. Pepper?
> 
> And then it counts the +1's and such given by participants.
> 
> So I was going to port that idea in to our meetbot.
> 
> Additionally (and this would help support your voice/non-voice idea) I
> was thinking that if we gave an additional argument to #startmeeting (in
> my brain, the launchpad team, since we already have those set up) we
> could have the meetbot grab a list of people it allows to vote, etc.
> from the team given - and even add a couple of toggle commands #public
> #private which could toggle voices only to team members or to everyone.
> 
> So, I think that's 2.5 feature requests for meetbot. On the plus side,
> the code is in python. Anybody wanna do a little hacking?
> 
> > 2) Can we have an official summary of the meetings published after
> > each of the meetings? The notes that the meetbot provides are sparse
> > (at best) and the raw IRC logs are voluminous and hard to read.
> 
> ++
> 
> Monty
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
> Post to     : openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>