On 2025-08-10 18:26, NoisyCoil wrote:
On 08/08/25 14:58, Blair Noctis wrote:This *is* worse than the status quo. If when we plan with weeks in advance 3 people show up, what would happen if we didn't plan in advance, fixed an automatic schedule (no effort put in choosing a date) and told people they are not even required to show up? I think your proposal would just result in team meetings becoming ordinary activity on IRC, no extra coordination resulting from them, with someone maybe recording the session, if that someone shows up at all.Drop-in: You are free to show up or not. So, it happens at a fixed schedule, but you can attend as you see fit.This isn't too worse than status quo: we already, practically, attend at will and by chance.
Theoretically, yes, this would reduce the "formality" of the meeting, so people would be more casual about it.
Practically, it's already the status quo. The Rust team is a loose coordination with no organizational or practical pressure to be "serious" about a meeting whatsoever, unlike e.g. the debconf team who must be serious because organizing a conference is a real thing, and failing to coordinate has real consequences. For us, the worst thing I can imagine is delay of or failure to introduce some packages. We have no obligation on that thus it doesn't really matter.
Like I said earlier, this is not a silver bullet, only an attempt to solve the problem of the repeated busy work of polling for a meeting date. People already attend at will, even if they voted in a poll. (I'm not pointing fingers, to be clear, just an observation.) An explicit "you can attend or not attend" doesn't change that IMO, only confirms the status.
You could argue that the lack of such explicit waiver does create an implicit feeling of obligation to attend, so it helps to have a fruitful meeting. On that point, you are right.
As for the bookkeeping, it's not a difficult job, anyone could do it. If it is so that no one even is willing to do it, I guess the meeting isn't gonna be too meaningful.
As for the schedule, I suggest we have it biweekly, one at a far negative time zones friendly time, one at a far positive time zones friendly time, so people at both zone ranges could have equal chance, and effectively have a monthly meeting, except for those who are enthusiastic enough to show up on both ends.Do we have enough people to allow ourselves to split team meetings? If 3 people show up at "plenaries" (i.e. unified meetings), how many people are going to show up at partial meetings?
From another perspective, maybe there are 2 people not showing up exactly because the plenary time isn't right for them? If we are already unable to fix a meeting with more than 3, what's the difference with one with 2?
On the other hand, I agree that meeting time is an issue. We should absolutely avoid 1800 UTC and take turns between earlier meetings (say 1200 UTC) and later meetings (say 1400 UTC). But we should avoid splitting them into multiple sessions and telling people they're not even supposed to show up.
The timing is one reason. But ultimately, we are a loose team, without structural or practical pressure to have a recurring meeting. Is it really necessary? From my experience we were just exchanging news, not having extensive discussions or even debates. We can't decide matters entirely through the meeting.
The thing is, there is no power invested in the meeting. It's not decisive on any matter. Coordination and collaboration happen not because of the meeting, but out of individual team member's will. As such, it can only be informational, thus, optional. From this perspective, it doesn't matter if we say it out loud it's optional or not. It inherently is. Its discussions are not inherently more serious/formal than "ordinary activity" on IRC or ML. Even a (hypothetical) book editor meeting would have been decisive and imposed more "obligation" on the editors because they have direct "power" over the book and expected obligation to improve it. People feel it, that's the reason they have been attending at will.
The other thing is, it's a bit unlikely we invest power in it. I know people who won't. Do-ocracy isn't as good as it first seems.
Maybe it's necessary from a social perspective. I don't know. -- ,Sdrager Blair Noctis 🇵🇸
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature