Re: [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for 1 December Community Call @ 1600 UTC

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 1 Dec 2022, at 21:56, Elliott Mitchell <ehem+xen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 05:11:36PM +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
>> 
>> == Dial-in Information ==
>> ## Meeting time
>> 16:00 - 17:00 UTC
>> Further International meeting times:
>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2022&month=12&day=1&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=1234&p2=37&p3=224&p4=179
>> 

Ellliot,

Thanks for your feedback.  Replies in-line.

> I guess I have to ask, what is the goal of the Community Call?  Neither
> this message, nor the wiki page
> (https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Community_Call) say much about the
> Community Call.

The goal of the call in general is just to talk about things that need talking 
about.  We obviously have the mailing list, but sometimes discussions here are 
easy to miss; and sometimes a discussion can get sorted out more quickly with a 
fast back-and-forth than with long email chains.  The intent has always been 
that if we start getting one topic that consistently 1) takes up a large amount 
of time and 2) only requires a subset of the attendees, to split it off into a 
separate meeting.

> Varies from place to place, but many places meeting times are more
> aspirational than ridged.  As such I felt rather disparaged by being
> careful about time, but no (obvious) effort spent prioritizing items.

It’s been quite a while since we’ve run so long.  I don’t necessarily have an 
objection to the call going long if people have time, but in this particular 
case I personally had to leave.

We have, in the past, continued a long-running part of the discussion past the 
end of the time; and once after I left and a handful of people stayed in the 
room for another hour and a half continuing the discussion they had started.  
In those cases, it was clear that the people key to the discussion were willing 
to stay on later.

At yesterday’s meeting, I could have asked for a volunteer to run the meeting 
after I left, but as Andrew was also leaving, and a number of the subsequent 
discussions required either me or him, it wasn’t immediately clear that this 
would be fruitful.

> This seemed to be being pointed out at the end of D.3, which was meant as
> low-priority, but was dealt with first purely due to being added first.
> Then most of the time was spent on D.4 when D.9 actually seemed a rather
> timely issue (the idea to get a bit of consideration before 4.17).

To be honest, part of my reluctance to move that one up in the agenda was 
because it was my own item.  Even with the number of items ahead of it, I 
didn’t expect it to be a problem to get to — there were several items which 
took much longer to discuss than I was expecting.  In the future I’ll be more 
pro-active about trying to prioritize things.

> Problem with D.1 being at the start is it was unexpected half the agenda
> would be thrown in the garbage due to time.  Could I suggest the 10th as
> better?

The 10th of January instead of the 12th of January?  Why is that better?

I work as a stay-at-home dad on Tuesdays, so I wouldn’t be able to chair the 
meeting if it was on the 10th.

Hope all that makes sense; feel free to come back with further questions / 
recommendations.

Thanks,
 -George

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP