Open Stack

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:40:01PM +0000, Robert Li (baoli) wrote:
>
> On 5/8/14, 4:33 PM, "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:

<snip> FWIW, it is nice to keep the author of a particular indent
level in the message </snip>

> >> Dan Smith <dms at danplanet.com> wrote:
> >> What would be the purpose of doing that before the session? IMHO, a
> >> large part of being able to solve this problem is getting everyone up to
> >> speed on what this means, what the caveats are, and what we're trying to
> >> solve. If we do some of that outside the scope of the larger audience, I
> >> expect we'll get less interaction (or end up covering it again) in the
> >> session.
> >>
> >> That said, if there's something I'm missing that needs to be resolved
> >> ahead of time, then that's fine, but I expect the best plan is to just
> >> keep the discussion to the session. Afterwards, additional things can be
> >> discussed in a one-off manner, but getting everyone on the same page is
> >> largely the point of having a session in the first place IMHO.
> >
> >Right, in spite of my previous response...looking at the etherpad there
> >is nothing there to frame the discussion at the moment:
> >
> >https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-nova-sriov-support
> >
> >I think populating this should be a priority rather than organizing
> >another session/meeting?
> >
> >Steve
>
> This is the one that Irena created:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/pci_passthrough_cross_project

Since the juno etherpad now contains the contents of the other, it seems
that someone has cut and pasted. Nice. I think we can frame the
discussion topics a little more clearly prior to the session though, so
maybe a brief gathering for that purpose would be useful?

One goal might be (as I think Dan alludes to) to provide some background
and details so the participants of the session can engage in
constructive dialogue. Dan provides a good outline:

 - Introduction - get up to speed

   What is the most effective way to outline for this particular
   audience so that they can participate?

 - What the caveats are.

   Are these our use cases? In a matter of speaking they are. One of
   them is also a question that needs answering.

 - What are we trying to solve?
   B. C. D. and E.?

   IMO, if there things we don't agree on at the moment, it is perfectly
   fine and probably preferable to present the problem and the alternate
   views (albeit objectively and evenly) in the session. Walking in with
   unresolved questions and walking out with the same questions is kind
   of a fail. Walking out with new unresolved questions is, IMO,
   fine... and probably likely ;)

 - We probably need to get to the "what we are going to do for Juno"
   question for this to be a good win. This could be "satisfy use case X
   and Y" and might be distressingly underwhelming or
   overambitious... this is something else that we might want to talk
   about as having some idea of what we want to accomplish vis-a-vis use
   cases and why, a prioritization, etc. is something that could be
   brought up in a session and discussed.

In any case, it goes without saying that coming away from the session
with something actionable and acceptable to the community is the
ultimate objective. A really strong understanding of what is needed for
acceptable nova blueprints for SRIOV (and why we haven't gotten there
yet maybe) would be super!

If getting together to further prepare for the session is something of
interest, I am free on Monday starting late morning. The rest of my
schedule is resolving, but I have firm commitments on mid-afternoon
Tuesday and Wednesday and will not be available then.

Cheers,

Brent