<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang="EN-AU" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">I'm not at all discounting the DevOps conversation as ideally a continuous cyclic dialog. There may well be wonderful continuous communication in Dev land for OpenStack right now, but in Ops land it's certainly not middle or start or end or anywhere, it's almost non-existent. This breakdown in the DevOps cycle is evident in the fact that the feedback from the "OpenStack User Survey" presented at the most recent summit was essentially unchanged from the feedback of the previous summit and echoed much of the same sentiment, so it's clear developers are not completing the DevOps cycle here even when this information was presented in advance last time. The attitude seems to be largely that if you have an issue then rather than "complaining about it" you should write more code to fix the issue i.e. ops should become dev so dev can remain doing what they like.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">I'm trying to get user feedback solidly and right up front into the summit because that's the only practical place to do it, for exactly the same reason the design sessions are done at the summit. I'm not saying it's the start, middle or end of the user feedback cycle, it's just a part but it's as important part as the design session is to the development process. Not only does trying to push this out to some other time and venue send a message to customers who might want to participate, the sure to be less attendance would dilute the input of Ops into the DevOps cycle and prejudice those of us that can't afford to send people to more events than the summits.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Cheers</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Tristan</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt"><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:jagman4000@gmail.com">jagman4000@gmail.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:jagman4000@gmail.com">jagman4000@gmail.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Joe Gordon<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, 28 December 2013 12:37 AM<br><b>To:</b> Tristan Goode<br><b>Cc:</b> Mark Collier; <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openstack] Bringing focus to the Operators and Users at the next summit</span></p>
</div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p><br>On Dec 27, 2013 4:24 AM, "Tristan Goode" <<a href="mailto:tristan@aptira.com">tristan@aptira.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> I'm having trouble seeing these great points of insight here other than it seems to indicate that the design summit format could be improved. Distilling this down to "We developers are all too busy at the summit, why don’t you users go get your own thing" suggests that perhaps it's time for a review of the summit format.<br>
></p><p>I think that's missing a key point, there is much more to this then evaluating the summit format. The summit is the middle of a long development dialog not the beginning or the end. Getting more operator feedback to the developers shouldn't just happen at the summits, it should be a continuous process just like openstack planning and development. So we need some way for operators and developers to have a continuous dialog. Developers communicate today on: IRC, email and launchpad and lastly in person twice a year at the design summit.</p>
<p>> <br>><br>> After all it does say "users" and "developers" on the summit logo.<br>><br>> <br>><br>> <br>><br>> <br>><br>> From: Mark Collier [mailto:<a href="mailto:mark@collierclan.net">mark@collierclan.net</a>] <br>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 December 2013 12:30 AM<br>> To: Sean Dague<br>><br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Bringing focus to the Operators and Users at the next summit<br>
><br>> <br>><br>> Thanks Sean. You and Thierry have made great points on this thread that I think give people more insight into the process and timing required to really impact the releases.<br>><br>> I've fallen into the trap many times of thinking we can solve any problem in the world during the 10 days a year we are all together, but in the end its only 10 days. No matter how you organize them, they don't any get longer.<br>
><br>> So +1 for some activities well before the summit to gather input. I think Tim's suggestion makes a ton of sense.<br>><br>> IMHO we should also avoid the trap of thinking that for gatherings to be valuable "everyone has to be there". That's what leads back to thinking the summit weeks are the answer to everything. As Tim said, it's quite likely operators are experiencing a lot of the same pain points, so what is needed is critical mass and action, not every known user in one room (unrealistic). Perhaps with some online components where operators that couldn't make a meetup can weigh in (and give a weighted priority to a list?)<br>
><br>> On Dec 23, 2013 6:35 AM, "Sean Dague" <<a href="mailto:sean@dague.net">sean@dague.net</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>> On 12/22/2013 12:49 PM, Rob_Hirschfeld@Dell.com wrote:<br>>> > I’d like to repeat a suggestion at the Design Summit wrap up – it’s a<br>
>> > bit different, so patience…<br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> > My suggestion was to insert a day “break” into the four day Design<br>>> > Summit for users/operations. Effectively, we’d have a four day design<br>
>> > summit with Monday+Tuesday - break for user/ops conf –<br>>> > Thursday+Friday. This would allow the developers and PTLs to join in<br>>> > the conference parts of the summit without needed a distinct event.<br>
>> > The regular non-design conference could be held Tuesday-Thursday so<br>>> > there’s a specific overlap day when 100% of the community would be together.<br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> ><br>
>> > I felt like this allows ideas from the summit to be socialized with<br>>> > users/operator before we commit to them. I also felt that it makes the<br>>> > developers more accessible. Finally, it creates a break/reflection from<br>
>> > the intensity of the design.<br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> > To recap, 4 day design, 3 day user/ops conference spanning 5 days.<br>>><br>>> Honestly I'd be pretty -1 on that idea. There is a certain momentum that<br>
>> builds inside the design summit sessions that 2 hard context switches<br>>> like that would really hurt. If you've ever spent time in the Nova track<br>>> you can see this in spades.<br>>><br>
>> I think one of the missing things for folks that don't spend all their<br>>> time in Design Summit is realizing that DS is really the *middle* of the<br>>> conversation, not that start of one. I actually think this is where<br>
>> folks new to design summit tend to flail a little be in their sessions.<br>>> My goals for design summit, and my tracks, were set weeks in advance,<br>>> and there was very little new here, it was mostly about working through<br>
>> the sticky details on things we largely were already working on, and<br>>> exposing some of that work to a wider audience which drags in new<br>>> volunteers. So the User / Ops day at Summit is far too late to impact<br>
>> that release cycle.<br>>><br>>> That interaction needs to come 3+ weeks before Design Summit to be<br>>> effective on that cycle. Because if it's later than that, it's just too<br>>> much to digest at a point where the plates are already overflowing. The<br>
>> key developers are already about 200% booked at Summits at this point,<br>>> which is actually why *more* OpenStack PTLs spoke at LinuxCon NA this<br>>> year than at OpenStack Summit HK. For instance, I only wandered out side<br>
>> of Design Summit twice, when I was on stage. And I didn't even get a<br>>> chance to go to any of the public parties, as I was booked every single<br>>> night at summit - weeks in advance.<br>>><br>
>> So I think that all those folks are pretty open to getting more engaged<br>>> with Users / Ops (I know I am), but the existing Summit structure isn't<br>>> going to allow that. Making people 250% booked at Summit isn't going to<br>
>> really be a successful way to handle this.<br>>><br>>> I'm far more positive on something mid cycle, preferably at other<br>>> conferences that we expected there to be OpenStack folks at to begin with.<br>
>><br>>> -Sean<br>>><br>>> --<br>>> Sean Dague<br>>> Samsung Research America<br>>> <a href="mailto:sean@dague.net">sean@dague.net</a> / <a href="mailto:sean.dague@samsung.com">sean.dague@samsung.com</a><br>
>> <a href="http://dague.net">http://dague.net</a><br>>><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Mailing list: <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
>> Post to : <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>>> Unsubscribe : <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Mailing list: <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
> Post to : <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>> Unsubscribe : <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
></p></div></div></body></html>