Le jeudi, 23 août 2012 11.06:21, Moray Allan a écrit : > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 06:54:19PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > a) What about picking a non-multiple-of-7 (such as 22) days offset > > between meetings so that the day-during-the-week rotates over time? > > (and stick to that). > > This (approximately) minimises the chance that people remember the > meeting day/time. Agreed. It's also a way to make sure we don't exclude people with weekly appointments to attend. > > b) What about picking the best time-in-the-week for me? (Thursday, > > 19:30 swiss time works for most of the weeks, but not all :-) > > ). More seriously, do we have a chance for a magical constant > > time-in-the-week? > > This is what normally worked best. Even when we started with another > plan, we normally fell into this one, with a 'least bad' day/time > based on the team's timezones and other commitments. (That time isn't > necessarily the one you discover by doing direct polling.) What do you suggest to (magically) find it? Cristallisation over time? $deity picking a time and taking responsibility for it? > > c) What about continuing with time polls for each meeting? Aka every > > potential meeting attendee has to fill a poll every month (or so). > > The busiest people are usually the least likely to fill out the polls > on time. It's also common if there's a poll that the meeting date is > announced too late. And people acquire new commitments after they > initially filled out the poll anyway. Agreed. With a monthly schedule, we can fight to send and close them early enough and it worked somehow this time. Polls launched by mail (instead of consensus at the end of IRC meetings) have the advantage of also asking the people that couldn't attend the meeting itself. OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.