Re: Did we decide what to do about weekly meetings?

["Bryen M. Yunashko" <suserocks bryen com>]

On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 21:00 -0400, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 01:34 +0200, Piñeiro wrote:
> 
> > Ups, I also forgot that, due Easter holidays. There was any meeting
> > today?
> 
> Heh. I'd forgotten about the Easter holidays. :-) And, no, there was no
> meeting today.
> 
> > IMHO, it would be a good idea to keep that meetings. Not sure if we
> > would have enough things to say, but no problem to have less than a
> > hour meetings just to keep updated.
> > 
> > Other issue is about the day and time. AFAIR, the current hour is not
> > really very popular, due some problems on the poll.
> 
> That was the other thing I was wondering about.
> 
> I don't think we'll be able to find a single hour that will work for
> everyone. And having a different hour each week strikes me as a likely
> source of confusion. But, assuming the consensus is to continue having
> weekly meetings, would it be possible to come up with a couple of times,
> at least one of which works for each individual? If so, we could
> alternate between them and the time would only suck, at most, every
> other week. :-)
> 
> --joanie
> 

I honestly think that even if it hasn't been perfect, the hour we've had
lately is working pretty well for us this year.  Whether it is
particularly the hour that works well or the day of the week that works
well could be a subject of debate, but as it stands now, I wouldn't
change the current time we have.

Bryen