Open Stack

I wanted to add a couple of additional comments.  First, there is an
implied assumption that the only method for soliciting customer feedback
is a survey. In this case, we chose to run a validation survey after
conducting a series of interviews because we felt a survey was the best
way to validate our findings.  However, the OpenStack UX project has also
conducted usability studies, card sorts and is beginning a contextual
inquiry.  Along with the Product working group, we are also driving an
effort to create a set of personas for the community. In some ways, the
value that the OpenStack UX team brings to the community is it¹s ability
to identity different research methodologies that address the needs of the
projects.

 
In most cases, we require a relatively small sample of participants.  For
example, usability studies generally require eight to twelve participants.
 

My recommendation would be to take the time to craft a screener and
distribute it to the community. The screener should focus on the specific
skills, experience, location, etc. of the respondents as well ask whether
they would be interested in participating in studies for the community.
The goal of the survey would be to allow researchers to target specific
segments of users rather than reaching out to the entire community.  I
would guess this approach would help to elevate some of the population
fatigue by ensuring the potential participants are contacted only when
they meet specific screener requirements.

I would be careful about adding project-specific questions to the end of
the bi-annual survey. First, the surveys only occur twice a year, which
may not be responsive enough for the projects.  In addition, you will
likely have a high dropout rate because respondents may not be willing to
answer additional questions for the projects teams at the end of a fairly
long survey.
 

Finally, the user committee will not share raw data as a policy.  That is
an utter deal-breaker for the OpenStack UX project because we need to be
able to conduct statistical analysis independent of the user committee or
foundation.


Piet

Piet Kruithof
Sr UX Architect, HP Helion Cloud
PTL, OpenStack UX project


"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and
wrong.²

H L Menken





On 9/29/15, 1:24 AM, "user-committee-request at lists.openstack.org"
<user-committee-request at lists.openstack.org> wrote:

>Send User-committee mailing list submissions to
>	user-committee at lists.openstack.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	user-committee-request at lists.openstack.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	user-committee-owner at lists.openstack.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of User-committee digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Per-project surveys (Barrett, Carol L)
>   2. Re: Per-project surveys (Lauren Sell)
>   3. Re: User-committee Digest, Vol 32, Issue 3 (Kruithof, Piet)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:55:57 +0000
>From: "Barrett, Carol L" <carol.l.barrett at intel.com>
>To: Bruno Morel <bmorel at internap.com>, Jonathan Proulx
>	<jon at csail.mit.edu>, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch>
>Cc: "user-committee at lists.openstack.org"
>	<user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys
>Message-ID:
>	<2D352D0CD819F64F9715B1B89695400D5C9168B0 at ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
>	
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>I like the idea of having optional sections to the User Survey. I think
>there is per-project info that PTLs are looking for that apply to
>different Operators, so allowing them to choose makes sense.
>
>I would also be interested in including a couple of questions on future
>usage models/capabilities that they don't need today, but can see them
>becoming important over the horizon.
>
>Carol
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruno Morel [mailto:bmorel at internap.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 12:14 PM
>To: Jonathan Proulx; Tim Bell
>Cc: user-committee at lists.openstack.org
>Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys
>
>
>I agree with Jonathan, in detail :
>
>* making it a regular, scheduled thing : everybody in the community would
>know and expect every 6 month (or 3 month ?) to have the opportunity to
>give feedback, especially if it is pre / post cycle (ex. : January ->
>July -> January ?)
>* Making it a community wide effort and consolidated in one ?interaction?
>/ survey : having the ability to check/uncheck which project you want to
>give feedback about would be very useful and probably help focus each set
>of question to each project goals / needs
>* A main section would be, in my opinion, the right place to get all the
>general project-independant information we want to gather and any related
>question to the community efforts
>
>Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 2015-09-28, 15:06, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm thinking we try (next round) to wrap this into the user survey.
>>
>>If we can organized the PTL surveys as optional and at the end
>>hopefully we can retain the short general overview an relatively high
>>response.
>>
>>If the survey is arranged so PTLs can send deeper links to say 'update
>>your Neuron usage survey' that go directly to that sub part we may not
>>completely solve the survey over load but we can at least eliminate the
>>duplication and bring all the data under the same privacy model.
>>
>>I'm thinking an "optional tab" at the end of the survey, after we thank
>>you for your responses, with a list of links to project specific
>>sections.
>>
>>-Jon
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:03:49PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
>>: 
>>:
>>:There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the
>>past :week (Neutron and Ceilometer).
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of
>>deployment, :release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are
>>currently asking in :the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The
>>commitment to anonymity is :also not always clear.
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are
>>not :sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead
>>to a bias.
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and
>>the :user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we
>>lose :everything because people bailed out before finishing).
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:Any suggestions on how to proceed ?
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:Tim
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>
>>
>>
>>:_______________________________________________
>>:User-committee mailing list
>>:User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>
>>
>>--
>_______________________________________________
>User-committee mailing list
>User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:07:54 -0500
>From: Lauren Sell <lauren at openstack.org>
>To: "Barrett, Carol L" <carol.l.barrett at intel.com>
>Cc: "user-committee at lists.openstack.org"
>	<user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys
>Message-ID: <200602B5-9714-4244-95C5-183C761F2291 at openstack.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>For this user survey cycle, we offered each PTL the opportunity to add
>one question under the ?current issues? heading, which was intended to
>cover a hot issue or discussion going into the design summit. Ideally,
>the ?current issues? questions do not need to become permanent fixtures
>in the survey for trending over time, and might be swapped out each
>survey cycle. 
>
>I would support continuing to include a reasonable number of "current
>issues" questions within the main survey, and then offering an optional
>link or tick box to receive more in-depth questions around a particular
>project or issue. For example, we included a tick box for those who were
>interested in learning more and participating in RefStack this time
>around. Operators (and other types of users) who really care about those
>projects or issues are more likely to participate.
>
>
>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Barrett, Carol L
>><carol.l.barrett at intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I like the idea of having optional sections to the User Survey. I think
>>there is per-project info that PTLs are looking for that apply to
>>different Operators, so allowing them to choose makes sense.
>> 
>> I would also be interested in including a couple of questions on future
>>usage models/capabilities that they don't need today, but can see them
>>becoming important over the horizon.
>> 
>> Carol
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruno Morel [mailto:bmorel at internap.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 12:14 PM
>> To: Jonathan Proulx; Tim Bell
>> Cc: user-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys
>> 
>> 
>> I agree with Jonathan, in detail :
>> 
>> * making it a regular, scheduled thing : everybody in the community
>>would know and expect every 6 month (or 3 month ?) to have the
>>opportunity to give feedback, especially if it is pre / post cycle (ex.
>>: January -> July -> January ?)
>> * Making it a community wide effort and consolidated in one
>>?interaction? / survey : having the ability to check/uncheck which
>>project you want to give feedback about would be very useful and
>>probably help focus each set of question to each project goals / needs
>> * A main section would be, in my opinion, the right place to get all
>>the general project-independant information we want to gather and any
>>related question to the community efforts
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2015-09-28, 15:06, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm thinking we try (next round) to wrap this into the user survey.
>>> 
>>> If we can organized the PTL surveys as optional and at the end
>>> hopefully we can retain the short general overview an relatively high
>>> response.
>>> 
>>> If the survey is arranged so PTLs can send deeper links to say 'update
>>> your Neuron usage survey' that go directly to that sub part we may not
>>> completely solve the survey over load but we can at least eliminate
>>>the 
>>> duplication and bring all the data under the same privacy model.
>>> 
>>> I'm thinking an "optional tab" at the end of the survey, after we
>>>thank 
>>> you for your responses, with a list of links to project specific
>>> sections.
>>> 
>>> -Jon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:03:49PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
>>> : 
>>> :
>>> :There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the
>>> past :week (Neutron and Ceilometer).
>>> :
>>> : 
>>> :
>>> :They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of
>>> deployment, :release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are
>>> currently asking in :the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The
>>> commitment to anonymity is :also not always clear.
>>> :
>>> : 
>>> :
>>> :The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are
>>> not :sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead
>>>to a bias.
>>> :
>>> : 
>>> :
>>> :On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and
>>> the :user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we
>>> lose :everything because people bailed out before finishing).
>>> :
>>> : 
>>> :
>>> :Any suggestions on how to proceed ?
>>> :
>>> : 
>>> :
>>> :Tim
>>> :
>>> : 
>>> :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> :_______________________________________________
>>> :User-committee mailing list
>>> :User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>> :http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> User-committee mailing list
>> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>> _______________________________________________
>> User-committee mailing list
>> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:23:06 +0000
>From: "Kruithof, Piet" <pieter.c.kruithof-jr at hpe.com>
>To: "user-committee at lists.openstack.org"
>	<user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>Subject: Re: [User-committee] User-committee Digest, Vol 32, Issue 3
>Message-ID: <D22EFB2F.184AE%pieter.c.kruithof-jr at hp.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Hi Tim,
>
> 
>Thanks for addressing some of the potential challenges around conducting
>surveys on behalf of the community.
>
> 
>The research conducted by the OpenStack UX project, including surveys,
>tend to focus on specific project needs rather than the overall direction
>of the industry, which is captured by the bi-annual survey.  The project
>surveys generally require a fair amount of detail in order to enable the
>project teams to make decision around product direction. As a result,
>adding a few questions to the foundation?s survey doesn?t generate the
>level of detail typically needed by each project.  Also, any questions
>added
>to the bi-annual survey are at the discretion of the user committee, which
>is a concern for me.
>
> 
>In addition, waiting for a survey every six months would not allow us to
>be responsive to the project research needs.
> 
>
>I agree with your concern with population fatigue and we would prefer to
>conduct studies with a more focused sample rather than the overall
>OpenStack community.   For example, we may specifically focus on network
>admins during one survey while focusing on other roles during another
>study.  In those cases, user/operators
>have generally been willing to participate because the results should have
>a tangible impact on their daily activities.
>
> 
>One recommendation would be to distribute a screener to the overall
>community to identify the specific skills and focus of its members.   The
>user committee and project
>teams could use the database created from the screener to identify
>potential participants for the various research activities.   The goal
>would be to be more focused on how
>we recruit participants rather than rolling out to the entire community.
>It would also allow us to track and limit how often members are being
>invited to participate in studies to avoid population fatigue.  The
>screener would also respondents to opt of
>being recruited for research activities.
> 
>
>We?ve asked in the past, but the user committee has not been unable to
>provide anonymized data because of a policy within the foundation that
>limits access to data to a handful of users.  I don?t dispute the need for
>the policy, but summary statistics aren?t helpful for conducting
>statistical analysis.  More recently, we?ve asked for the raw data from
>the operator job analysis survey because of its value in helping to drive
>persona development, but have yet to hear back from the foundation.
>
> 
>Piet
>
>
>
>
>Piet Kruithof
>Sr UX Architect, HP Helion Cloud
>PTL, OpenStack UX project
>
>
>"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and
>wrong.?
>
>H L Menken
>
>
>
>
>
>On 9/28/15, 1:14 PM, "user-committee-request at lists.openstack.org"
><user-committee-request at lists.openstack.org> wrote:
>
>>Send User-committee mailing list submissions to
>>	user-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>	http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>	user-committee-request at lists.openstack.org
>>
>>You can reach the person managing the list at
>>	user-committee-owner at lists.openstack.org
>>
>>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>than "Re: Contents of User-committee digest..."
>>
>>
>>Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. [ceilometer] OpenStack Telemetry user survey (gord chung)
>>   2. Per-project surveys (Tim Bell)
>>   3. Re: Per-project surveys (Jonathan Proulx)
>>   4. Re: Per-project surveys (Bruno Morel)
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 1
>>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:20:31 -0400
>>From: gord chung <gord at live.ca>
>>To: user-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>Subject: [User-committee] [ceilometer] OpenStack Telemetry user survey
>>Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP1679BBE89E1E497D27C2BDDDE4F0 at phx.gbl>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>The OpenStack Telemetry (aka Ceilometer) team would like to collect
>>feedback and information from its user base in order to drive future
>>improvements to the project.  To do so, we have developed a survey. It
>>should take about 15min to complete.
>>Questions are fairly technical, so please ensure that you ask someone
>>within your organization that is hands on using Ceilometer.
>>
>>https://goo.gl/rKNhM1
>>
>>On behalf of the Ceilometer community, we thank you for the time you
>>will spend in helping us understand your needs.
>>
>>-- 
>>Gordon Chung
>>Ceilometer PTL
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 2
>>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:03:49 +0000
>>From: Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch>
>>To: "user-committee at lists.openstack.org"
>>	<user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>>Subject: [User-committee] Per-project surveys
>>Message-ID:
>>	<5D7F9996EA547448BC6C54C8C5AAF4E5010A478000 at CERNXCHG41.cern.ch>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> 
>>
>>There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the
>>past
>>week (Neutron and Ceilometer).
>>
>> 
>>
>>They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of
>>deployment,
>>release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are currently asking
>>in
>>the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The commitment to anonymity
>>is
>>also not always clear.
>>
>> 
>>
>>The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are not
>>sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead to a
>>bias.
>>
>> 
>>
>>On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and the
>>user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we lose
>>everything because people bailed out before finishing).
>>
>> 
>>
>>Any suggestions on how to proceed ?
>>
>> 
>>
>>Tim
>>
>> 
>>
>>-------------- next part --------------
>>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>URL: 
>><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150928
>>/
>>4ca53707/attachment-0001.html>
>>-------------- next part --------------
>>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>Name: smime.p7s
>>Type: application/pkcs7-signature
>>Size: 7349 bytes
>>Desc: not available
>>URL: 
>><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150928
>>/
>>4ca53707/attachment-0001.bin>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 3
>>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:06:28 -0400
>>From: Jonathan Proulx <jon at csail.mit.edu>
>>To: Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch>
>>Cc: "user-committee at lists.openstack.org"
>>	<user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>>Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys
>>Message-ID: <20150928190628.GL24467 at csail.mit.edu>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>>I'm thinking we try (next round) to wrap this into the user survey.
>>
>>If we can organized the PTL surveys as optional and at the end
>>hopefully we can retain the short general overview an relatively high
>>response. 
>>
>>If the survey is arranged so PTLs can send deeper links to say 'update
>>your Neuron usage survey' that go directly to that sub part we may not
>>completely solve the survey over load but we can at least eliminate
>>the duplication and bring all the data under the same privacy model.
>>
>>I'm thinking an "optional tab" at the end of the survey, after we
>>thank you for your responses, with a list of links to project specific
>>sections.
>>
>>-Jon 
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:03:49PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
>>: 
>>:
>>:There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the
>>past
>>:week (Neutron and Ceilometer).
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of
>>deployment,
>>:release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are currently
>>asking in
>>:the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The commitment to
>>anonymity is
>>:also not always clear.
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are
>>not
>>:sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead to a
>>bias.
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and the
>>:user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we lose
>>:everything because people bailed out before finishing).
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:Any suggestions on how to proceed ?
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>:Tim
>>:
>>: 
>>:
>>
>>
>>
>>:_______________________________________________
>>:User-committee mailing list
>>:User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>-------------- next part --------------
>>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>Name: smime.p7s
>>Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
>>Size: 3659 bytes
>>Desc: not available
>>URL: 
>><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150928
>>/
>>5f7df03d/attachment-0001.bin>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 4
>>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:14:14 +0000
>>From: Bruno Morel <bmorel at internap.com>
>>To: Jonathan Proulx <jon at csail.mit.edu>, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch>
>>Cc: "user-committee at lists.openstack.org"
>>	<user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>>Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys
>>Message-ID: <A21C8C21-16BA-47A2-8B53-0B813541125E at internap.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>
>>I agree with Jonathan, in detail :
>>
>>* making it a regular, scheduled thing : everybody in the community would
>>know and expect every 6 month (or 3 month ?) to have the opportunity to
>>give feedback, especially if it is pre / post cycle (ex. : January ->
>>July -> January ?)
>>* Making it a community wide effort and consolidated in one ?interaction?
>>/ survey : having the ability to check/uncheck which project you want to
>>give feedback about would be very useful and probably help focus each set
>>of question to each project goals / needs
>>* A main section would be, in my opinion, the right place to get all the
>>general project-independant information we want to gather and any related
>>question to the community efforts
>>
>>Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 2015-09-28, 15:06, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I'm thinking we try (next round) to wrap this into the user survey.
>>>
>>>If we can organized the PTL surveys as optional and at the end
>>>hopefully we can retain the short general overview an relatively high
>>>response. 
>>>
>>>If the survey is arranged so PTLs can send deeper links to say 'update
>>>your Neuron usage survey' that go directly to that sub part we may not
>>>completely solve the survey over load but we can at least eliminate
>>>the duplication and bring all the data under the same privacy model.
>>>
>>>I'm thinking an "optional tab" at the end of the survey, after we
>>>thank you for your responses, with a list of links to project specific
>>>sections.
>>>
>>>-Jon 
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:03:49PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
>>>: 
>>>:
>>>:There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the
>>>past
>>>:week (Neutron and Ceilometer).
>>>:
>>>: 
>>>:
>>>:They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of
>>>deployment,
>>>:release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are currently
>>>asking in
>>>:the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The commitment to
>>>anonymity is
>>>:also not always clear.
>>>:
>>>: 
>>>:
>>>:The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are
>>>not
>>>:sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead to a
>>>bias.
>>>:
>>>: 
>>>:
>>>:On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and
>>>the
>>>:user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we lose
>>>:everything because people bailed out before finishing).
>>>:
>>>: 
>>>:
>>>:Any suggestions on how to proceed ?
>>>:
>>>: 
>>>:
>>>:Tim
>>>:
>>>: 
>>>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>:_______________________________________________
>>>:User-committee mailing list
>>>:User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>>:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>User-committee mailing list
>>User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>
>>
>>End of User-committee Digest, Vol 32, Issue 3
>>*********************************************
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: default[1].xml
>Type: application/xml
>Size: 3222 bytes
>Desc: default[1].xml
>URL: 
><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150928/
>c8b87b75/attachment.xml>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>User-committee mailing list
>User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>
>
>End of User-committee Digest, Vol 32, Issue 4
>*********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: default.xml
Type: application/xml
Size: 3222 bytes
Desc: default.xml
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150930/9a1970a1/attachment-0001.xml>