<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/04/16 20:29, Steven Hardy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20160419082926.GB2232@t430slt.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:24:46PM +1200, Steve Baker wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> All of the TripleO design summit sessions are on Thursday afternoon in
slots which clash with Heat sessions. Heat is a core component of TripleO
and as a contributor to both projects I was rather hoping to attend as
many of both sessions as possible - I don't think I'm alone in this
desire.
Is it possible that some horse trading could take place to reduce the
clashes? Maybe TripleO sessions could move to Wednesday morning?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes I agree this is unfortunate. I already queried the clashes wrt the
contributor meetups, and was told we can only adjust if we can find another
project willing to switch - I'm Open to negotiation if any other PTLs wish
to change sessions at this late stage.
I see the current Heat schedule has SoftwareDeployment improvements [1] and
Issues with very large stacks [2] at non-conflicting times, which is good
as these are probably amongst the top priorities for TripleO (other than
performance improvements, which relates to very-large-stacks).
One observation I would make is that Heat does have a pretty large number
of sessions (12 in total plus meetup), this is always going to present
challenges from a scheduling point of view - perhaps we can ask for a
volunteer or two (other than myself) from the Heat community who is willing
to cover at least the Upgrades fishbowl[3] and Composable Services
workroom[4] sessions if we can't resolve the conflicts.
Thanks,
Steve
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9115">https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9115</a>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9117">https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9117</a>
[3] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9118">https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9118</a>
[4] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9292">https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9292</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Hack">I think we could reduce the topic overlap just by
shuffling the heat sessions.<br>
<br>
Thomas, what do you think of the following?<br>
Swap work sessions "</font><font face="Hack">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Release model and versioning" and "Validation improvements</font><font
face="Hack">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9240">https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9240</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9247">https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9247</a><br>
This would let me attend the tripleo CI work session, and the
release model session which I proposed ;)<br>
<br>
Swap work sessions "Performance improvements" and "hot-parser"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9236">https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9236</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9248">https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9248</a><br>
This will make the performance work session before the performance
fishbowl, but I'm sure we could make that work. Its not like we
need the fishbowl to solicit areas of improvement.<br>
<br>
Sorry for the hassle.<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>