10:51 a.m.
Hi all,
I won't be at tonight's websites meeting, but I wanted to send out a
reminder and ask for one or two of the Websites regulars to step up and
lead the meeting.
#fedora-websites @ 20:00 UTC
Our tasklist has fractured into the "current stuff that is actually
being worked on" and the "older stuff that is sort of in hibernation".
My thanks to Karsten for doing some clean-up on that page.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks
--Max
11:40 a.m.
Max Spevack wrote:
Hi all,
I won't be at tonight's websites meeting, but I wanted to send out a
reminder and ask for one or two of the Websites regulars to step up and
lead the meeting.
#fedora-websites @ 20:00 UTC
I was wondering if there is anyway we could standardize the meeting
time? I wonder if staggering it has lead to more people who would
actually attend not being able to attend (due to confusion over what
time it is this week or other obligations).
~m
11:46 a.m.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Máirín Duffy wrote:
I was wondering if there is anyway we could standardize the meeting
time? I wonder if staggering it has lead to more people who would
actually attend not being able to attend (due to confusion over what
time it is this week or other obligations).
I would love to standardize the meeting time, but the last few times I
brought this up, it was voted down due to too many timezone differences.
Maybe we can split the difference and just have it at 21:00 UTC every
week, instead of alternating between 20:00 and 22:00?
--Max
11:58 a.m.
Max Spevack wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> I was wondering if there is anyway we could standardize the meeting
> time? I wonder if staggering it has lead to more people who would
> actually attend not being able to attend (due to confusion over what
> time it is this week or other obligations).
I would love to standardize the meeting time, but the last few times I
brought this up, it was voted down due to too many timezone differences.
Maybe we can split the difference and just have it at 21:00 UTC every
week, instead of alternating between 20:00 and 22:00?
I could actually make it every week if it was at that time. What do
others think?
~m
12:34 p.m.
� wrote:
Max Spevack wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, M�ir�n Duffy wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if there is anyway we could standardize the meeting
>> time? I wonder if staggering it has lead to more people who would
>> actually attend not being able to attend (due to confusion over what
>> time it is this week or other obligations).
>
> I would love to standardize the meeting time, but the last few times
> I brought this up, it was voted down due to too many timezone
> differences.
>
> Maybe we can split the difference and just have it at 21:00 UTC every
> week, instead of alternating between 20:00 and 22:00?
I could actually make it every week if it was at that time. What do
others think?
~m
works for me no matter what time we go with.
--
~Michael
http://michaelbox.net
3:38 p.m.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:58:29PM -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy_ wrote:
I could actually make it every week if it was at that time. What do
others think?
Yes. 21:00 UTC is go for me :)
--
Ian Weller <ianweller(a)gmail.com> http://ianweller.org
GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36
"Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet."
~ Douglas Adams
5:03 p.m.
Ian Weller wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:58:29PM -0400,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy_ wrote:
> I could actually make it every week if it was at that time. What do
> others think?
>
Yes. 21:00 UTC is go for me :)
Sigh, well now I feel horrible. 21:00 doesn't work for me either cuz I
have a standing 4:30-5:30 that I forgot about.
I'll deal!
~m
12:11 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 18:03 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Ian Weller wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:58:29PM -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy_ wrote:
>> I could actually make it every week if it was at that time. What do
>> others think?
>>
> Yes. 21:00 UTC is go for me :)
Sigh, well now I feel horrible. 21:00 doesn't work for me either cuz I
have a standing 4:30-5:30 that I forgot about.
Sorry if I'm not calculating right, but would it work for you to do your
meeting then dip in for the last 1/2 of the Websites meeting?
Another option that isn't often used is to actually run a meeting from
N:30 to N+1:30. I'm comfie with that, especially if we use our own irc
channel so's not to impact on da rhythm of #fedora-meeting.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
12:30 p.m.
Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 18:03 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> Ian Weller wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:58:29PM -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy_
wrote:
>>> I could actually make it every week if it was at that time. What do
>>> others think?
>>>
>> Yes. 21:00 UTC is go for me :)
> Sigh, well now I feel horrible. 21:00 doesn't work for me either cuz I
> have a standing 4:30-5:30 that I forgot about.
Sorry if I'm not calculating right, but would it work for you to do your
meeting then dip in for the last 1/2 of the Websites meeting?
Nope it usually goes 4:30 straight to 6 ET. (where 4 = 20 UTC and 6 = 22
UTC)
Another option that isn't often used is to actually run a meeting from
N:30 to N+1:30. I'm comfie with that, especially if we use our own irc
channel so's not to impact on da rhythm of #fedora-meeting.
The only time in the 20-22 block that works for me on mondays is 20, no
halfsies unfortunately :(
~m
12:04 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 18:46 +0200, Max Spevack wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> I was wondering if there is anyway we could standardize the meeting
> time? I wonder if staggering it has lead to more people who would
> actually attend not being able to attend (due to confusion over what
> time it is this week or other obligations).
I would love to standardize the meeting time, but the last few times I
brought this up, it was voted down due to too many timezone differences.
Maybe we can split the difference and just have it at 21:00 UTC every
week, instead of alternating between 20:00 and 22:00?
IIRC, that would knock out both groups of people who were served by the
split time. I recall transit between locations being a primary
situation.
This is a perennial problem, with each group beating on it every time
they want to set a meeting. I'm wondering what else we can try or offer
in the pool if ideas?
* Meet twice a week at two different times (and days), then synthesize
the meetings via mailing list.
* Have one meeting that goes extra long (we tried this in Docs to a
limited success.)
* Introduce voice so that people who are in transit without Internet can
call in and participate.
... ?
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
12:21 p.m.
Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 18:46 +0200, Max Spevack wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if there is anyway we could standardize the meeting
>> time? I wonder if staggering it has lead to more people who would
>> actually attend not being able to attend (due to confusion over what
>> time it is this week or other obligations).
> I would love to standardize the meeting time, but the last few times I
> brought this up, it was voted down due to too many timezone differences.
>
> Maybe we can split the difference and just have it at 21:00 UTC every
> week, instead of alternating between 20:00 and 22:00?
IIRC, that would knock out both groups of people who were served by the
split time. I recall transit between locations being a primary
situation.
Are you sure? I know I am sitting on a bus at 22:00 UTC but I wasn't
aware of anyone else who had transit issues?
This is a perennial problem, with each group beating on it every time
they want to set a meeting. I'm wondering what else we can try or offer
in the pool if ideas?
Are the folks driving the 22:00 UTC time showing up? Can they tolerate
21:00 instead? Can any of these folks reading the thread right now help
us figure this out?
* Introduce voice so that people who are in transit without Internet
can
call in and participate.
This wouldn't work for me as I sit on a bus with many other people :(
~m
1:10 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 13:21 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
>
> IIRC, that would knock out both groups of people who were served by the
> split time. I recall transit between locations being a primary
> situation.
Are you sure? I know I am sitting on a bus at 22:00 UTC but I wasn't
aware of anyone else who had transit issues?
I'm probably recalling just that and applying it in other instances.
Perhaps a regular review that the meeting time continues to work for
everyone (once-a-quarter check-in?)
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
1:54 p.m.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Are the folks driving the 22:00 UTC time showing up? Can they
tolerate
21:00 instead? Can any of these folks reading the thread right now
help us figure this out?
We had a small, but productive meeting at 22:00 last week. I won't be
at this week's 20:00 meeting, but we'll see how it goes...
--Max
1:55 p.m.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Max Spevack wrote:
#fedora-websites @ 20:00 UTC
Our tasklist has fractured into the "current stuff that is actually
being worked on" and the "older stuff that is sort of in hibernation".
My thanks to Karsten for doing some clean-up on that page.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks
Bringing this thread back to tonight, is someone willing to take the
leadership reins and continue the refreshing of our tasks list, and
progress checks on our most important items?
--Max
2:12 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 20:55 +0200, Max Spevack wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Max Spevack wrote:
> #fedora-websites @ 20:00 UTC
>
> Our tasklist has fractured into the "current stuff that is actually
> being worked on" and the "older stuff that is sort of in
hibernation".
> My thanks to Karsten for doing some clean-up on that page.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks
Bringing this thread back to tonight, is someone willing to take the
leadership reins and continue the refreshing of our tasks list, and
progress checks on our most important items?
I would usually be happy to, but I'm heading out with friends in about
10 minutes! Sorry to bail out tonight...
Jon
12:09 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 20:55 +0200, Max Spevack wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Max Spevack wrote:
> #fedora-websites @ 20:00 UTC
>
> Our tasklist has fractured into the "current stuff that is actually
> being worked on" and the "older stuff that is sort of in
hibernation".
> My thanks to Karsten for doing some clean-up on that page.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks
Bringing this thread back to tonight, is someone willing to take the
leadership reins and continue the refreshing of our tasks list, and
progress checks on our most important items?
It was done, in an ad hoc fashion.
Ian was going to follow-up with the IRC log to this list.
Did everyone get their tasks updated?
Then I had started a discussion that resulted my question to this list
about the Websites mission. :)
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
3:27 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
Ian was going to follow-up with the IRC log to this list.
Here ya go.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Websites_IRC_log_20080825
--
Ian Weller <ianweller(a)gmail.com> http://ianweller.org
GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36
"Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet."
~ Douglas Adams
5783
days inactive
5784
days old
websites@lists.fedoraproject.org
16 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Ian Weller -
Jonathan Roberts -
Karsten Wade -
Max Spevack -
Michael Beckwith -
Máirín Duffy