<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Thierry Carrez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org" target="_blank">thierry@openstack.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">Doug Hellmann wrote:<br>
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant <<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="">>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't much<br>
>> to ask given the rate at which things happen in OpenStack. I would<br>
>> argue that given the rate, we should not try to ask more of individuals<br>
>> (like this proposal) and risk burnout. Instead, we should be doing our<br>
>> best to be more open an inclusive to give the project the best chance to<br>
>> grow, as that's the best way to get more done.<br>
>><br>
>> I think an increased travel expectation is a raised bar that will hinder<br>
>> team growth, not help it.<br>
><br>
</div>> +1, well said.<br>
<br>
Sorry, I was away for a few days. This is a topic I have a few strong<br>
opinions on :)<br>
<br>
There is no denial that the meetup format is working well, comparatively<br>
better than the design summit format. There is also no denial that that<br>
requiring 4 travels per year for a "core" dev is unreasonable. Where is<br>
the limit ? Wouldn't we be more productive and aligned if we did one per<br>
month ? No, the question is how to reach a sufficient level of focus and<br>
alignment while keeping the number of "mandatory" travel at 2 per year.<br>
<br>
I don't think our issue comes from not having enough F2F time. Our issue<br>
is that the design summit no longer reaches its objectives of aligning<br>
key contributors on a common plan, and we need to fix it.<br>
<br>
We established the design summit as the once-per-cycle opportunity to<br>
have face-to-face time and get alignment across the main contributors to<br>
a project. That used to be completely sufficient, but now it doesn't<br>
work as well... which resulted in alignment and team discussions to be<br>
discussed at mid-cycle meetups instead. Why ? And what could we change<br>
to have those alignment discussions at the design summit again ?<br>
<br>
Why are design summits less productive that mid-cycle meetups those days<br>
? Is it because there are too many non-contributors in the design summit<br>
rooms ? Is it the 40-min format ? Is it the distractions (having talks<br>
to give somewhere else, booths to attend, parties and dinners to be at)<br>
? Is it that beginning of cycle is not the best moment ? Once we know<br>
WHY the design summit fails its main objective, maybe we can fix it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For my self, the issue with the design summits have been around the duration and the number of sessions that I would like to attend that are scheduled at the same time. I have rarely seen the issue be too many non-contributors in the room, if they don't have anything to add they usually just listen. The 40 minute format is a bit too restrictive, but if all design summit tracks dropped the 40-min format it would be even harder for me to attend sessions across tracks, one of the main benefits of the design summit IMHO. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
My gut feeling is that having a restricted audience and a smaller group<br>
lets people get to the bottom of an issue and reach consensus. And that<br>
you need at least half a day or a full day of open discussion to reach<br>
such alignment. And that it's not particularly great to get such<br>
alignment in the middle of the cycle, getting it at the start is still<br>
the right way to align with the release cycle.<br>
<br>
Nothing prevents us from changing part of the design summit format (even<br>
the Paris one!), and restrict attendance to some of the sessions. And if<br>
the main issue is the distraction from the conference colocation, we<br>
might have to discuss the future of co-location again. In that "2 events<br>
per year" objective, we could make the conference the optional cycle<br>
thing, and a developer-oriented specific event the mandatory one.<br>
<br>
If we manage to have alignment at the "design summit", then it doesn't<br>
spell the end of the mid-cycle things. But then, ideally the extra<br>
mid-cycle gatherings should be focused on getting specific stuff done,<br>
rather than general team alignment. Think workshop/hackathon rather than<br>
private gathering. The goal of the workshop would be published in<br>
advance, and people could opt to join that. It would be totally optional.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Thierry Carrez (ttx)<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>