Review meeting date times ? #809

mhdawson · 2020-01-29T15:14:32Z

May be time to review the day/times for the TSC meetings. #808 (comment)

@targos sounds like Wednesday is not good for you at all. @nodejs/tsc are people open to looking to move to another day? From past conversations I think we'd tried to keep all instances on the same day is that still the case or should we consider different days in addition to different times?

ChALkeR · 2020-02-12T20:19:54Z

Everyone, please also update the valid at column even if your timeslots were not updated so that we can tell how actual the data is =).

mhdawson · 2020-02-14T22:04:31Z

I wonder if we should also discuss a different day based on the comment by @targos. Possibly a timeslot on Thursday?

gabrielschulhof · 2020-02-14T23:35:27Z

Thursdays would work better for me as well.

mcollina · 2020-02-15T07:52:25Z

I'm good on both Wednesdays and Thursdays.
I would prefer to avoid Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays.

targos · 2020-02-15T08:20:34Z

Thursdays work for me. If we do multiple days we'll need multiple spreadsheets

Trott · 2020-02-15T17:52:30Z

FWIW, Wednesdays are much better than Tuesdays or Thursdays for me.

mhdawson · 2020-02-17T14:34:57Z

I've added another sheet for Thursday. I have a feeling we are going to need to use 2 days.

ChALkeR · 2020-02-19T13:24:31Z

Given the current data, it's likely that we will have either 2 or 3 (out of 3) timeslots on Thursdays instead of Wednesdays.
We don't have about half of the data confirmed yet. @nodejs/tsc ping =).

mhdawson · 2020-03-06T20:22:14Z

@ChALkeR at this point we probably have the data we are going to get. Can you pull generate a recommendation from the data?

ChALkeR · 2020-03-07T02:08:31Z

@mhdawson data updated (on the third page of the sheet).

Seems like three main alternatives (times not mentioned on a purpose -- those are present in the table, but I don't want the specific timeslots to affect the generic decision we make here).

Here, percentages are expected participation of each person, in %.

Option 1. Three timeslots (Wed/Thu)

  participation: { avg: .694, min: .39, stdev: .1527, fair: .9549, n5: 17 }
  percentages: 94,93,93,93,89,70,68,64,64,64,63,63,63,63,63,63,63,48,39
  interaction: { avg: .485, min: .0757, stdev: .1724, fair: .597, n5: 87 }
  meetings: { probs: [ .958, 1, 1 ], avg: [ 11.58, 14.21, 14.27 ] }

One person at ~40%, one at ~50%, 10 at or above ~60%, 2 at or above ~70%, 5 at or above ~90%.
Average ~69%.
Interaction at ~49% average.

The downside here is that it brings one person significantly below 50% (to 40%) participation.

Option 2. Two timeslots (Wed/Thu)

  participation: { avg: .764, min: .48, stdev: .219, fair: .9764, n5: 12 }
  percentages: 95,95,95,95,95,95,94,94,94,94,94,72,48,48,48,48,48,48,48
  interaction: { avg: .577, min: .0189, stdev: .255, fair: .438, n5: 66 }
  meetings: { probs: [ 1, 1 ], avg: [ 14.78, 14.27 ] }

7 persons at ~50%, one at ~70%, everyone else (11) at above 90%.
Average ~76%.
Interaction at ~58% average, but particular probabilities are decreased.

The downside here is interaction form -- in particular, there are going to be more pairs of people who are very unlikely to ever be present on the same call.
I.e. it's more segmented.

Option 3. Two timeslots (Thursday only)

  participation: { avg: .749, min: .48, stdev: .214, fair: .9763, n5: 13 }
  percentages: 95,95,95,95,95,95,94,94,94,94,72,57,57,48,48,48,48,48,48
  interaction: { avg: .554, min: .0189, stdev: .247, fair: .452, n5: 76 }
  meetings: { probs: [ 1, 1 ], avg: [ 14.21, 14.27 ] }

6 persons at ~50%, two at ~60%, one at ~70%, everyone else (10) at above 90%.
Average ~75%.
Interaction at ~55% average, but particular probabilities are decreased.

Has the same problem as Option 2 -- there are 6 people each of whom would be able to attend only one meetings, and they segment into two groups, so people from different groups won't be ever present on the same meeting.

ChALkeR · 2020-03-07T02:24:06Z

@mhdawson One more note: it seems that not everybody confirmed Thursdays yet, and I see at least one person whose data has the potential of shifting the optimal timeslots significantly there.

Trott · 2020-03-07T06:39:29Z

We should probably add availability data for @codebytere and @mmarchini and see if anything changes. (The other two current nominees, Ruben and Gireesh, are already in the spreadsheet. And the recent emeritus, Sakthipriyan, has been removed from the spreadsheet. So the spreadsheet is up-to-date otherwise.)

Trott · 2020-03-07T06:39:58Z

We should probably add availability data for @codebytere and @mmarchini and see if anything changes.

I'll email them the link along with the "please do not share this information" caveat.

Trott · 2020-03-07T06:42:53Z

Also, daylight savings time change happens in the U.S. this weekend, so everyone here will probably have to update their data again. Whee!

mhdawson · 2020-03-09T14:19:26Z

Ok given the daylight savings time can we ask that everybody @nodejs/tsc updates their entries and we'll look at the results in a week. Hopefully, we'll have data from @codebytere and @mmarchini as well as updates from the rest of the TSC by then.

mhdawson · 2020-03-25T20:50:51Z

@nodejs/tsc I think we'll all have shifted (if a shift was going to occur next week). Please make sure to have updated your entries by end of this week.

@ChALkeR can you do another pass at good times next monday?

mhdawson · 2020-03-30T21:44:17Z

@ChALkeR ping?

ChALkeR · 2020-03-31T07:30:05Z

@mhdawson sorry for the delay -- recent events stir everything.

Two main variants now:

Option 1. Two timeslots (one day)

6 people at about ~50%, 3 at ~60%, 1 at ~70%, all rest above 90% (10).
Average 74%.

The positive side is that everyone is at almost 50% or above.

The downside is that there are at several pairs of people who are likely to be never present on the same meeting together.

  participation: { avg: .74, min: .484, stdev: .212, fair: .9771, n5: 14 }
  percentages: 95,95,95,95,95,95,94,94,94,94,72,57,57,57,48,48,48,48,48,48
  interaction: { avg: .542, min: .019, stdev: .243, fair: .451, n5: 87 }
  meetings: { probs: [ .999, 1 ], avg: [ 14.41, 15.23 ] }

Option 2. Three timeslots (two days)

Two persons at ~40%, one at ~50%, all rest above 60% (8 above 90%).
Average 73% -- similar to the previous one.

The positive side is that minimum interaction is higher -- each two people can have some possibility of meeting at a same timeslot.
Also, this brings 3 people from ~50% to ~65% (and lowers stdev).

On the downside, this makes things harder for two people, bringing them from ~50% down to ~40%.

  participation: { avg: .73, min: .39, stdev: .1847, fair: .9511, n5: 17 }
  percentages: 95,95,95,95,94,94,90,90,70,69,65,64,64,64,64,64,64,49,39,39
  interaction: { avg: .528, min: .0759, stdev: .205, fair: .557, n5: 108 }
  meetings: { probs: [ .997, .999, 1 ], avg: [ 14.24, 14.41, 15.23 ] }

Times not included on a purpose to avoid unintended bias, but one can look them up in the table on the third page (by searching for matching blocks).

mhdawson · 2020-03-31T14:48:54Z

My opinion is that taking people down from 50% to 40% is not worth the benefit of having greater possibility of interaction in meetings. If it was 90% to 80% that might be different but those at 50% are already challenged in terms of the meeting times and going down even further I don't think would be the right choice.

ChALkeR · 2020-03-31T16:50:47Z

@mhdawson To clarify: the difference is not just in bringing two people from 50% to 40% vs increasing interaction, there is a bunch of differences between the two options, e.g. the second one also brings three people from 50% to 65% and reduces stdev.

But yes, that might be not worthwhile.

Let's have a quick reaction-based poll here:

👍 – option 1
🎉 – option 2

I personally abstain, mostly because I prepared the poll.

mcollina · 2020-03-31T17:43:35Z

It's not exactly clear what are the timeslots. I think that'd be helpful.

ChALkeR · 2020-03-31T22:01:20Z

@mcollina I did not mention the timeslots on a purpose, to not unintentionally bias people towards their personally convenient timeslots as opposed to what option seems more appropriate.

One could look them up the spreadsheet as I mentioned above, but I'm not sure if that is a good idea. I'm not voting here personally because I might be biased.

Trott · 2020-04-03T18:09:09Z

@ChALkeR Is it safe to assume you explored a 4-timeslot option but that it didn't have any superior options?

ChALkeR · 2020-04-06T14:58:36Z

@Trott No, that didn't happen because I used the web version that has that disabled.
I will recheck with 4-timeslot option today.

ChALkeR · 2020-04-07T01:11:02Z

@Trott, actually, there is a number of 4-timeslot variants which seem better than both of those.

ChALkeR · 2020-04-07T01:25:54Z

E.g. this one:

times: [ 14, 39, 44, 45 ]
  participation: { avg: .723, min: .484, stdev: .1665, fair: .9787, n5: 17 }
  percentages: 95,95,94,94,91,91,84,75,72,72,72,72,68,60,60,53,53,48,48,48
  interaction: { avg: .517, min: .0616, stdev: .1895, fair: .556, n5: 92 }
  meetings: { probs: [ .997, .999, 1, .996 ], avg: [ 14.24, 14.41, 15.23, 14.05 ] }

One meeting at 14 UTC on Wednesday, the remaining ones on Thursday at 15, 20, 21 UTC.

Average is one percent lower, but this looks better than at least the first option.

WDYT?

ChALkeR · 2020-04-07T01:39:50Z

Ok, given that a lot of people weighted in on the 1/2 option and there is almost a draw, also we have a 4-slot option now, let me reveal the times involved.

Timeslots:

2 timeslots: 39, 44 (15, 20 UTC Thu), 74% avg.
3 timeslots: 14, 39, 44 (14 UTC on Wed + 15, 20 UTC Thu), 73% avg.
4 timeslots: 14, 39, 44, 45 (14 UTC on Wed + 15, 20, 21 UTC Thu), 72.3% avg.
Would make sense to make it in the order of 14, 45, 39, 44, for example.

Meeting averages

14 UTC on Wed -- 99.7% chance, 14.24 people avg,
15 UTC on Thu -- 99.9% chance, 14.41 people avg,
20 UTC on Thu -- >99.9% chance, 15.23 people avg,
21 UTC on Thu -- 99.6% chance, 14.05 people avg.

Participation percentages:

1: 95,95,95,95,95,95,94,94,94,94,72,57,57,57,48,48,48,48,48,48
2: 95,95,95,95,94,94,90,90,70,69,65,64,64,64,64,64,64,49,39,39
3: 95,95,94,94,91,91,84,75,72,72,72,72,68,60,60,53,53,48,48,48

Interaction percentages:

1: 90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,88,88,88,69,69,69,69,69,69,68,68,68,68,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,54,50,50,50,47,47,47,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,25,25,25,25,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2
2: 90,90,90,90,90,90,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,89,88,85,85,85,85,85,85,85,85,84,84,84,84,81,66,66,66,66,66,66,66,66,65,65,65,65,65,64,62,62,62,62,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,61,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,60,59,59,56,56,56,56,56,56,56,56,56,56,49,49,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,44,44,42,39,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,37,36,36,36,36,34,34,34,32,32,32,32,32,32,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,17,17,17,17,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8
3: 90,89,89,89,89,88,86,86,86,86,86,86,85,85,83,79,79,79,79,76,75,72,72,71,71,71,70,69,69,68,68,68,68,68,68,68,68,68,68,68,68,67,67,67,67,66,65,64,64,64,64,64,64,64,64,64,64,64,64,63,61,60,59,58,57,57,57,57,57,57,57,57,57,57,57,56,56,55,55,54,54,54,53,52,52,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,49,49,48,48,48,47,47,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,46,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,43,43,43,42,42,42,42,42,42,42,42,40,40,39,38,36,35,35,33,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,25,25,25,25,24,24,24,24,24,24,18,18,13,13,13,6,6,6,6,6,6

ChALkeR · 2020-04-07T01:41:47Z

It looks like the 4-slot variant is better in general, so I'm going to propose that as the main variant.
Please let me know if anyone thinks that's too complex.

mcollina · 2020-04-07T09:59:29Z

I'm good with everything, however if the 4 variants is chosen it's better we alternate the times like so:

14 UTC on Wed
20 UTC on Thu
15 UTC on Thu
21 UTC on Thu

So that the people that can meet earlier in the day have a chance to meet every other week anyway.

Trott · 2020-04-07T22:22:04Z

Sounds good to me.

targos · 2020-04-08T05:45:35Z

SGTM

ChALkeR · 2020-04-08T15:51:49Z

@mcollina In the post above, I mentioned this order: 14, 45, 39, 44, which is:

14 UTC on Wednesday
21 UTC on Thursday
15 UTC on Thursday
20 UTC on Thursday

I don't see much difference between the two of those, anything of those two should work I think 😃.
i.e. 14-20-15-21 is also fine.

mcollina · 2020-04-08T15:52:47Z

I did not understand what 45 and 44 where at all.

ChALkeR · 2020-04-08T15:53:59Z

@mcollina Ah. Time in hours minus 00:00 UTC on Wednesday, that's how the timeslots are numbered in the spreadsheet.

apapirovski · 2020-04-08T15:57:57Z

The 4 time slots + thu are way better for me. Too many standing mtgs on Wed that I can't move :(

mhdawson · 2020-04-09T13:30:44Z

Calender updated, closing.

targos · 2020-04-09T13:36:08Z

Next meeting:

Thursday, 16 April 2020, 15:00:00 UTC

mhdawson mentioned this issue Feb 12, 2020

Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2020-02-12 #815

Closed

mhdawson added the tsc-agenda label Mar 30, 2020

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

mhdawson mentioned this issue Apr 6, 2020

Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2020-04-08 #846

Closed

mhdawson closed this as completed Apr 9, 2020

Review meeting date times ? #809

Review meeting date times ? #809

Comments

mhdawson commented Jan 29, 2020

ChALkeR commented Feb 12, 2020 • edited Loading

mhdawson commented Feb 14, 2020

gabrielschulhof commented Feb 14, 2020

mcollina commented Feb 15, 2020

targos commented Feb 15, 2020

Trott commented Feb 15, 2020

mhdawson commented Feb 17, 2020

ChALkeR commented Feb 19, 2020 • edited Loading

mhdawson commented Mar 6, 2020

ChALkeR commented Mar 7, 2020 • edited Loading

Option 1. Three timeslots (Wed/Thu)

Option 2. Two timeslots (Wed/Thu)

Option 3. Two timeslots (Thursday only)

ChALkeR commented Mar 7, 2020 • edited Loading

Trott commented Mar 7, 2020

Trott commented Mar 7, 2020

Trott commented Mar 7, 2020

mhdawson commented Mar 9, 2020

mhdawson commented Mar 25, 2020

mhdawson commented Mar 30, 2020

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

ChALkeR commented Mar 31, 2020 • edited Loading

Option 1. Two timeslots (one day)

Option 2. Three timeslots (two days)

mhdawson commented Mar 31, 2020

ChALkeR commented Mar 31, 2020 • edited Loading

mcollina commented Mar 31, 2020

ChALkeR commented Mar 31, 2020 • edited Loading

Trott commented Apr 3, 2020 • edited Loading

ChALkeR commented Apr 6, 2020

ChALkeR commented Apr 7, 2020

ChALkeR commented Apr 7, 2020 • edited Loading

ChALkeR commented Apr 7, 2020

Timeslots:

Meeting averages

Participation percentages:

Interaction percentages:

ChALkeR commented Apr 7, 2020

mcollina commented Apr 7, 2020

Trott commented Apr 7, 2020

targos commented Apr 8, 2020

ChALkeR commented Apr 8, 2020 • edited Loading

mcollina commented Apr 8, 2020

ChALkeR commented Apr 8, 2020

apapirovski commented Apr 8, 2020

mhdawson commented Apr 9, 2020

targos commented Apr 9, 2020

ChALkeR commented Feb 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR commented Feb 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR commented Mar 7, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR commented Mar 7, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR commented Mar 31, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR commented Mar 31, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR commented Mar 31, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Trott commented Apr 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR commented Apr 7, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR commented Apr 8, 2020 •

edited

Loading