openstack-poc team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: making ppb meetings better (?)
On 09/09/2011 03:07 PM, John Dickinson wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> 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.
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Monty Taylor
>> <mailto: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
>> > 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
>> #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
>> 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.
>> Mailing list:
>> Post to :
>> Unsubscribe :
>> More help :