Hey all. I can't help but noticing a significant disconnect between the original wg membership (including last time we called for a check-in) and the people who are coming to meetings and doing a lot of the work. This doesn't reflect negatively on the original slate -- things just shape up differently and whatever. Overall, in fact, I think it's a very positive thing, because a) lots of new (and returning) faces (or names, at least, because... online) and b) this hasn't gotten in the way of us doing anything in any way.
But I think we should name and ratify a new slate to better reflect the active state of the SIG in the past few months. Anyone opposed?
On 09/18/2014 12:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
But I think we should name and ratify a new slate to better reflect the active state of the SIG in the past few months. Anyone opposed?
No opposition here. +1
Le 18 sept. 2014 19:11, "Joe Brockmeier" jzb@redhat.com a écrit :
On 09/18/2014 12:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
But I think we should name and ratify a new slate to better reflect the active state of the SIG in the past few months. Anyone opposed?
No opposition here. +1
+1 Actually, we hardly reach the quorum so it's not even working. If possible I'd like us to be more inclusive with the SIG, to make it easier to include new people.
-- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Haïkel hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Le 18 sept. 2014 19:11, "Joe Brockmeier" jzb@redhat.com a écrit :
On 09/18/2014 12:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
But I think we should name and ratify a new slate to better reflect the active state of the SIG in the past few months. Anyone opposed?
No opposition here. +1
+1 Actually, we hardly reach the quorum so it's not even working.
I think the biggest problem is getting a time that syncs for everyone. This is just my opinion. I however would like to hear what folks will have to say and how to move forward.
If possible I'd like us to be more inclusive with the SIG, to make it easier to include new people.
-- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 09/19/2014 01:31 AM, Frankie Onuonga wrote:
I think the biggest problem is getting a time that syncs for everyone. This is just my opinion. I however would like to hear what folks will have to say and how to move forward.
We'll never have a time that works for everyone. Regardless, no matter what time the meeting is, attending meetings isn't the primary thing - getting the work done is. We send out minutes, logs, and there's Trac and the mailing list to coordinate.
Best,
jzb
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 06:27:14AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
We'll never have a time that works for everyone. Regardless, no matter what time the meeting is, attending meetings isn't the primary thing - getting the work done is. We send out minutes, logs, and there's Trac and the mailing list to coordinate.
+1 (or more). Especially now when we're in a "doing" phase over a "talking" one.
Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives, https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.
If you're on this list but feel like you shouldn't be, speak up. (If, for example, you're really not going to have time over the *next* three months.) And if you aren't but think you really should be, just say so -- in private or here or whatever -- I'm not meaning to leave out anyone who is actively involved and I easily could have missed relevant activity not represented by the sources above (and also, I haven't had much coffee yet this morning.)
So, proposed new slate:
* Andy Grimm (agrimm) * Dusty Mabe (dustymabe) * Ian McLeod (imcleod) * Jared Smith (jsmith) * Joe Brockmeier (jzb) * Haïkel Guémar (number80) * David Gay (oddshocks) * Mike Ruckmman (roshi) * Scott Collier (scollier)
(Why yes, that is in alphabetical order by IRC nick.)
You'll notice I left _myself_ off. That's not because of not caring, but because of that "not having time over the next few months" thing — I really need to focus on FPL duties. And, it's also because Red Hat is in the process of hiring someone to replace my old role focusing on Fedora Cloud. I'm not going to name names until the ink is dry, but it's someone who will have no trouble jumping into the mix on merit in short order. (I'm also really not concerned about number of members, by the way -- I think we shouldn't make 9 a magic number and adjust up and down based on activity.)
2014-09-29 16:16 GMT+02:00 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org:
Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives, https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.
If you're on this list but feel like you shouldn't be, speak up. (If, for example, you're really not going to have time over the *next* three months.) And if you aren't but think you really should be, just say so -- in private or here or whatever -- I'm not meaning to leave out anyone who is actively involved and I easily could have missed relevant activity not represented by the sources above (and also, I haven't had much coffee yet this morning.)
So, proposed new slate:
- Andy Grimm (agrimm)
- Dusty Mabe (dustymabe)
- Ian McLeod (imcleod)
- Jared Smith (jsmith)
- Joe Brockmeier (jzb)
- Haïkel Guémar (number80)
- David Gay (oddshocks)
- Mike Ruckmman (roshi)
- Scott Collier (scollier)
(Why yes, that is in alphabetical order by IRC nick.)
Just to speak about the other people that are not me, they are all worthy to join the WG. I'm particularly excited to have representatives from doc & QA which will be important topics in the next releases. Products without documentation and QA are not really products, no matter how great they are ;-)
You'll notice I left _myself_ off. That's not because of not caring, but because of that "not having time over the next few months" thing — I really need to focus on FPL duties. And, it's also because Red Hat is in the process of hiring someone to replace my old role focusing on Fedora Cloud. I'm not going to name names until the ink is dry, but it's someone who will have no trouble jumping into the mix on merit in short order. (I'm also really not concerned about number of members, by the way -- I think we shouldn't make 9 a magic number and adjust up and down based on activity.)
*nods* I'd like to thank you for your good services in the Cloud SIG then Cloud WG, you did great :)
And I assume that everyone else wants the WG to remain open to any Cloud SIG member. Since we're using lazy consensus, as long as we keep membership at a reasonable level, it's not a problem to add few members.
Regards, H.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:16:41AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, proposed new slate:
- Andy Grimm (agrimm)
- Dusty Mabe (dustymabe)
- Ian McLeod (imcleod)
- Jared Smith (jsmith)
- Joe Brockmeier (jzb)
- Haïkel Guémar (number80)
- David Gay (oddshocks)
- Mike Ruckmman (roshi)
- Scott Collier (scollier)
I am really happy to be a part of this list and I will do my best to remain active. Please bear with me, though, if I don't volunteer for many work items as my time is somewhat limited right now. Any work items that I sign up for will get done.
I'll be on the lookout for small/mid-size tasks that I can do to pitch in. Right now the F21 testing efforts are in the foreground.
Dusty
On 09/29/2014 09:16 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives, https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.
Should we have a "speak up by X date or hold your peace" on this?
(I generally favor lazy consensus, 72 hours.)
Best,
jzb
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:38:36PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives, https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.
Should we have a "speak up by X date or hold your peace" on this? (I generally favor lazy consensus, 72 hours.)
I'm in favor too, but technically, by the governance structure we agreed to originally, this falls under "should be voted on in a ticket" -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance#Making_Decisions
I was thinking to give people a chance to say "wait, I'm going to be more active" or "you totally left me out unfairly" (hopefully that didn't happen, but seriously, accidental if it did) or also "hold on I'm not going to be able to do this so please don't add me" before making a ticket.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:38:36PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
On 09/29/2014 09:16 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives, https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.
Should we have a "speak up by X date or hold your peace" on this?
(I generally favor lazy consensus, 72 hours.)
Best,
jzb
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
I didn't know I had to speak up :) I'm more than happy to be included in the list.
cloud@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Dusty Mabe -
Frankie -
Haïkel -
Joe Brockmeier -
Matthew Miller -
Mike Ruckman