The link is here, please remember to change your timezone. http://whenisgood.net/qsz3as7 The results will be on this page. http://whenisgood.net/qsz3as7/results/zdncxp

On Jul 15, 2011 10:36 AM, "Zach Oglesby" <oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > The link is here, please remember to change your timezone. > > http://whenisgood.net/qsz3as7 > > > > The results will be on this page. > > http://whenisgood.net/qsz3as7/results/zdncxp > > Based on the results 3PM UTC looks like the best time. The following > is the break down by user/time. Please provided any feedback on this > if I don't hear anything back by next Wed morning I will assume this > is an acceptable time. > > Event: Fedora Docs Meeting > Date: July 21, 2011 > Time: 3:00:00 PM > Can make it: Ben Cotton, Douglas Silas, Eliska Slobodova, Florian > Nadge fnadge, Jared Smith, Petr Kovar, Sparks, Zach (zoglesby), jjmcd > Can't make it: Christopher Antila, Paul W. Frields, sgordon > Timezone: GMT I don't see Rudi's availability listed...

> US/Eastern > Date: July 21, 2011 > Time: 11:00:00 AM > Invitees: Jared Smith, Paul W. Frields, Sparks, Zach (zoglesby), jjmcd > > Canada/Eastern > Date: July 21, 2011 > Time: 11:00:00 AM > Invitees: Christopher Antila > > US/East-Indiana > Date: July 21, 2011 > Time: 11:00:00 AM > Invitees: Ben Cotton > > Australia/Brisbane > Date: July 22, 2011 > Time: 1:00:00 AM > Invitees: sgordon > > Europe/Prague > Date: July 21, 2011 > Time: 5:00:00 PM > Invitees: Douglas Silas, Eliska Slobodova, Florian Nadge fnadge,

much as I value the input of Rudi and others in the AU, I think that this will give us max participation, and the chance to have some great folks step up and help out more.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, John J. McDonough <wb8rcr(a)arrl.net&gt; wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 09:25 -0400, Zach Oglesby wrote: >> much as I value the input of Rudi and others in the AU, I think that >> this will give us max participation, and the chance to have some great >> folks step up and help out more. > > I think this only emphasizes the need to do more of our business on this > list so that time zones aren't such an issue.  I have to admit that I'm > among the worst offenders in failing to bring issues here, and ignoring > those that do make it here. > > I have this feeling that we could somehow make this work better, but I > don't really know how. > > --McD I could not agree more, the meeting is good to be able to talk about things in a more interactive mode, but we should try and handle more stuff on the list. As it stands now our SOP is to being something up on the list before adding it to the agenda for the meeting, if we actually follow that model it should keep the conversation focused on the list, and make the meeting a secondary means of communication.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Zach Oglesby wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, John J. McDonough <wb8rcr(a)arrl.net&gt; wrote: >> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 09:25 -0400, Zach Oglesby wrote: >> >> much as I value the input of Rudi and others in the AU, I think that >> >> this will give us max participation, and the chance to have some great >> >> folks step up and help out more. >> > >> > I think this only emphasizes the need to do more of our business on this >> > list so that time zones aren't such an issue.  I have to admit that I'm >> > among the worst offenders in failing to bring issues here, and ignoring >> > those that do make it here. >> > >> > I have this feeling that we could somehow make this work better, but I >> > don't really know how. >> > >> > --McD >> >> I could not agree more, the meeting is good to be able to talk about >> things in a more interactive mode, but we should try and handle more >> stuff on the list. As it stands now our SOP is to being something up >> on the list before adding it to the agenda for the meeting, if we >> actually follow that model it should keep the conversation focused on >> the list, and make the meeting a secondary means of communication. > > This is another reason I like to send zodbot's minutes (as well as the > URLs he publishes) to the list.  That way the flow looks like this: > > * Idea goes on list for discussion > * After discussion, goes to meeting for general consensus/approval > * Minutes indicate said consensus (using "#agreed <stuff>" and/or >  "#action <someone> <do the thing that means it was approved") > * Minutes go to list in the email with (or following) URLs, and no one >  is surprised because topic was fairly and transparently handled > > -- > Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/ >  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 >  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ >    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com Sparks brought up another idea on IRC today that we may want to have two meetings, so that we can accommodate people in all timezones. I have two questions I would like to pose to this for everyone to give input on. Do you like this idea, the second is what are individuals views for the point of the meeting (i.e. what do you feel that we are trying to accomplish by having weekly meetings). To me the meeting is helpful to get real-time communication with people working on specific issues, by having two meetings we are able to have this communication with more people, but we lose the ability to make big decisions during a meeting. I will note that I don't think thats really a bad thing, because as jjmcd has pointed out we need to become more dependent on the list. Zach