[bind10-dev] BIND 10 team call reminder & agenda for 2012-05-08

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉]

At Tue, 08 May 2012 18:07:05 +0200,
Jelte Jansen <jelte at isc.org> wrote:

> >> Is this still 1-hour meeting, just starting 30 min earlier, or is
> >> it assumed to be (up to) 75 min or 90 min?  I'd be willing to
> >> wake up 30 minutes earlier if that helps others much, but I'm
> >> still not convinced about the need for extending the meeting time
> >> (and I didn't think we had a clear conclusion about this in the
> >> f2f meeting).
> > 
> > It's 1hour long, with the note we're not being as strict with
> > terminating on time.
> > 
> 
> Yep, that was the conclusion at the F2F.
> 
> A cynical person could note that there is no actual difference between
> 'the meeting is 60 minutes long but may last 30 minutes longer'
> and
> 'the meeting is 90 minutes long but may end early'
> 
> As the meeting from just now has shown, even 90 is still not enough
> sometimes. Guess we talk too much.

I have to admit that with today's volume of agenda a 60-min slot is
probably too short.  Still I think there's a room to improve the
efficiency of using the meeting time.

- For "status report" type of agenda, the "reporter" could have
  summarized the points of the report on the etherpad.  We can then
  briefly have Q&A and be done with it.
- Some of the topics seemed to be quite minor to me.  We could be more
  strict about which topics are really worth the meeting time, rather
  than trying to cover as many proposed topics as possible.
- A free-discussion type of topic are tricky, but if it really has
  issues to require intensive discussions, it won't fit a small part
  of 60-90 min meeting anyway.  While I understand followup
  discussions on the list are not always as active as we might hope, I
  think it's still more effective we restrict the on-call discussions
  to highlight major issues and then defer further discussions to the
  list if we cannot quickly get a consensus.

> (but, in fairness, and noting that this reasoning does not take your
> early days into account, my preference for the earlier start time,
> regardless of meeting length, is because it is much less confusing to
> start on the same time each week)

(Although I personally have had no problem with switching two
different start times) I don't mind starting 30 min earlier for
biweekly calls, too, at least while I live in the DST.  My main
concern is that we tend to be satisfied with just randomly talking
about random topics and extending the meeting time to maximize the
satisfaction.  IMO, the on-call topics should generally get some
conclusion/consensus or at least have clear next step because the time
is very expensive.  If we take all efforts for that goal, and still
have too many important topics to complete within 60 minutes, I don't
mind extending the slot either.  But right now, it still seems to me
we are giving us an easy excuse to have just a longer chat.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya