[openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles
dtantsur at redhat.com
Wed Dec 13 17:37:50 UTC 2017
On 12/13/2017 06:29 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:16:35PM +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
>> On 13 December 2017 at 17:12, Jimmy McArthur <jimmy at openstack.org> wrote:
>>> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>> - It doesn't mean that teams can only meet in-person once a year.
>>>> Summits would still provide a venue for team members to have an
>>>> in-person meeting. I also expect a revival of the team-organized
>>>> midcycles to replace the second PTG for teams that need or want to meet
>>>> more often.
>>> The PTG seems to allow greater coordination between groups. I worry that
>>> going back to an optional mid-cycle would reduce this cross-collaboration,
>>> while also reducing project face-to-face time.
>> I can't speak for the Foundation, but I would think it would be good to
>> have an official PTG in the middle of the cycle (perhaps neatly aligned
>> with some kind of milestone/event) that lets people discuss plans for
>> finishing off the release, and early work they want to get started on for
>> the subsequent release). The problem with team-organised midcycles (as I'm
>> sure everyone remembers), is that there's little/no opportunity for
>> cross-project work.
> This was one of my concerns initially too. We may have to see how things go and
> course correct once we have a little more data to go on. But the thought (or at
> least the hope) was that we could get by with using the one PTG early in the
> cycle to get alignment, then though IRC, the mailing list, and the Forums (keep
> in mind there will be two Forums within the cycle) we would be able to keep
> things going and discuss any cross project concerns.
Let's please not bring Forum in this context, unless we want to move it back to
the Summit format. Which is not impossible though, we can have one event as
Forum (+ PTG somewhere close), one event similar to former Summit.
> This may actually get more emphasis on developers attending the Forum. I think
> that is one part of our PTG/Design Summit split that has not fully settled the
> way we had hoped. The Forum is still encouraged for developers to attend. But I
> think the reality has been many companies now just see the Summit as a
> marketing event and see no reason to send any developers.
It won't change from merely removing one PTG. PTGs really work much better than
Summits used to work for technical discussions, from my experience. Unless we
make Forums work as well, it will be just as hard to justify going there, even
without a PTG.
> I can say from the last couple Forum experiences, a lot of really good
> discussions have happened there. It's really been unfortunate that there were a
> lot of key people missing from some of those discussions though. Personally, my
> hope with making this change would mean that the likelihood of devs being able
> to justify going to the Forum increases.
.. or for companies to justify cutting the travel budget?
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev