Our biweekly meetings

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/09/2011 05:50 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Apologies for the delayed response.  Note that we ended up not meeting on
> Wednesday because it was only Jelmer and myself. ;)  Maybe the thing to do is
> to suspend the meetings until we have a clear agenda for them moving forward.
> 
> Note that I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing!  While there are some
> big ticket items that really need addressing (e.g. the quilt story), for me,
> UDD is a huge success.  Despite the warts, I personally can't imagine working
> any other way.

Yeah, I was sprinting and Martin was sick. We could do it next week if
you want, though.

> 
> On Sep 06, 2011, at 03:12 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> 
>> The main thing I appreciated about the meetings was hearing what other people
>> had done towards UDD.
> 
> A common theme these days: let's celebrate your successes!
> 
> One possible change in format would be to do a lightning round, and just go
> around the "table" with each person identifying one or two items they've run
> into, fixed, hacked on, or have a wild idea about.  I would certainly love to
> hear about what you guys are excited about that might be coming soon.  If
> there was some new feature, I'd be happy to run a dev branch for a bit to try
> things out.
> 
> A great example is the branch status messages that bzr now gives.  The
> original status lines needed a bit of tweaking, but now that it's landed, I am
> absolutely ecstatic about the feature.  JAM, you nailed it!
> 
>> I think a part of this is also that UDD as a project doesn't really have
>> releases - and no really visible changelog. So despite a lot of things
>> getting done, we normally wouldn't hear about them.
> 
> Agreed.  The lightning round might do the trick there.
> 
>> Another thing that was occasionally useful was discussions about particular
>> problems, like what to do about the project branch and packaging branch for a
>> native package. The mailing list seems to work reasonably well for that sort
>> of discussion too though, when it happens to come up.
> 
> What do you think about this: after the lightening round, we can have one or
> two brief discussions on any particular design or implementation point for
> which the higher bandwidth would be useful?
> 
> Mostly, I want to cut out the boring parts of the meeting, or anything we can
> do just as well over email.  Let's make the meetings fun and interesting to
> participate in, and maybe we'd get more than just us chiming in. :)
> 
> Cheers,
> -Barry
> 

I think it can be a really good way to help *me* keep an ear out for
what the current warts of the system are, and what would really help
real-world use. Especially stuff like the informational notes. It can be
easy to get stuck on some major thing (quilt merging), and not get
papercuts fixed.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk5qTKwACgkQJdeBCYSNAANvxQCeIwhapVGNro5au+0i9C52rWRW
pWwAnRlf9NBY1qJkg0Z0wAXEkbDp22AF
=rg/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----