<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">To follow up on the thread about surveys, I wanted to flag the user survey working session happening in Tokyo, Thursday at 11:50 am:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://mitakadesignsummit.sched.org/event/f5289a0fbf32e1596a31c338ef1d998e#.VhyIa5dgjXo" class="">https://mitakadesignsummit.sched.org/event/f5289a0fbf32e1596a31c338ef1d998e#.VhyIa5dgjXo</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The main objectives of the meeting are to gather input and feedback on the current user survey, share plans in flight to improve reporting, potentially form a broader working group that can help facilitate the biannual survey, and discuss how we can incorporate or support initiatives across projects, like the UX group (while preventing survey fatigue).<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks Tom for putting together the initial etherpad: <a href="https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/TYO-user-survey" class="">https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/TYO-user-survey</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please feel free to jump in and add notes or topics to prep for the working session.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cheers,</div><div class="">Lauren</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:17 PM, Kruithof, Piet <<a href="mailto:pieter.c.kruithof-jr@hpe.com" class="">pieter.c.kruithof-jr@hpe.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">I wanted to add a couple of additional comments. First, there is an<br class="">implied assumption that the only method for soliciting customer feedback<br class="">is a survey. In this case, we chose to run a validation survey after<br class="">conducting a series of interviews because we felt a survey was the best<br class="">way to validate our findings. However, the OpenStack UX project has also<br class="">conducted usability studies, card sorts and is beginning a contextual<br class="">inquiry. Along with the Product working group, we are also driving an<br class="">effort to create a set of personas for the community. In some ways, the<br class="">value that the OpenStack UX team brings to the community is itıs ability<br class="">to identity different research methodologies that address the needs of the<br class="">projects.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">In most cases, we require a relatively small sample of participants. For<br class="">example, usability studies generally require eight to twelve participants.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">My recommendation would be to take the time to craft a screener and<br class="">distribute it to the community. The screener should focus on the specific<br class="">skills, experience, location, etc. of the respondents as well ask whether<br class="">they would be interested in participating in studies for the community.<br class="">The goal of the survey would be to allow researchers to target specific<br class="">segments of users rather than reaching out to the entire community. I<br class="">would guess this approach would help to elevate some of the population<br class="">fatigue by ensuring the potential participants are contacted only when<br class="">they meet specific screener requirements.<br class=""><br class="">I would be careful about adding project-specific questions to the end of<br class="">the bi-annual survey. First, the surveys only occur twice a year, which<br class="">may not be responsive enough for the projects. In addition, you will<br class="">likely have a high dropout rate because respondents may not be willing to<br class="">answer additional questions for the projects teams at the end of a fairly<br class="">long survey.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Finally, the user committee will not share raw data as a policy. That is<br class="">an utter deal-breaker for the OpenStack UX project because we need to be<br class="">able to conduct statistical analysis independent of the user committee or<br class="">foundation.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Piet<br class=""><br class="">Piet Kruithof<br class="">Sr UX Architect, HP Helion Cloud<br class="">PTL, OpenStack UX project<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and<br class="">wrong.²<br class=""><br class="">H L Menken<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 9/29/15, 1:24 AM, "<a href="mailto:user-committee-request@lists.openstack.org" class="">user-committee-request@lists.openstack.org</a>"<br class=""><<a href="mailto:user-committee-request@lists.openstack.org" class="">user-committee-request@lists.openstack.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Send User-committee mailing list submissions to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="mailto:user-committee@lists.openstack.org" class="">user-committee@lists.openstack.org</a><br class=""><br class="">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class="">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>user-committee-request@lists.openstack.org<br class=""><br class="">You can reach the person managing the list at<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>user-committee-owner@lists.openstack.org<br class=""><br class="">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br class="">than "Re: Contents of User-committee digest..."<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Today's Topics:<br class=""><br class=""> 1. Re: Per-project surveys (Barrett, Carol L)<br class=""> 2. Re: Per-project surveys (Lauren Sell)<br class=""> 3. Re: User-committee Digest, Vol 32, Issue 3 (Kruithof, Piet)<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 1<br class="">Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:55:57 +0000<br class="">From: "Barrett, Carol L" <carol.l.barrett@intel.com><br class="">To: Bruno Morel <bmorel@internap.com>, Jonathan Proulx<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><jon@csail.mit.edu>, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch><br class="">Cc: "user-committee@lists.openstack.org"<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><user-committee@lists.openstack.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys<br class="">Message-ID:<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><2D352D0CD819F64F9715B1B89695400D5C9168B0@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com><br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class="">I like the idea of having optional sections to the User Survey. I think<br class="">there is per-project info that PTLs are looking for that apply to<br class="">different Operators, so allowing them to choose makes sense.<br class=""><br class="">I would also be interested in including a couple of questions on future<br class="">usage models/capabilities that they don't need today, but can see them<br class="">becoming important over the horizon.<br class=""><br class="">Carol<br class="">-----Original Message-----<br class="">From: Bruno Morel [mailto:bmorel@internap.com]<br class="">Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 12:14 PM<br class="">To: Jonathan Proulx; Tim Bell<br class="">Cc: user-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I agree with Jonathan, in detail :<br class=""><br class="">* making it a regular, scheduled thing : everybody in the community would<br class="">know and expect every 6 month (or 3 month ?) to have the opportunity to<br class="">give feedback, especially if it is pre / post cycle (ex. : January -><br class="">July -> January ?)<br class="">* Making it a community wide effort and consolidated in one ?interaction?<br class="">/ survey : having the ability to check/uncheck which project you want to<br class="">give feedback about would be very useful and probably help focus each set<br class="">of question to each project goals / needs<br class="">* A main section would be, in my opinion, the right place to get all the<br class="">general project-independant information we want to gather and any related<br class="">question to the community efforts<br class=""><br class="">Bruno<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 2015-09-28, 15:06, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon@csail.mit.edu> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">I'm thinking we try (next round) to wrap this into the user survey.<br class=""><br class="">If we can organized the PTL surveys as optional and at the end<br class="">hopefully we can retain the short general overview an relatively high<br class="">response.<br class=""><br class="">If the survey is arranged so PTLs can send deeper links to say 'update<br class="">your Neuron usage survey' that go directly to that sub part we may not<br class="">completely solve the survey over load but we can at least eliminate the<br class="">duplication and bring all the data under the same privacy model.<br class=""><br class="">I'm thinking an "optional tab" at the end of the survey, after we thank<br class="">you for your responses, with a list of links to project specific<br class="">sections.<br class=""><br class="">-Jon<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:03:49PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the<br class="">past :week (Neutron and Ceilometer).<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of<br class="">deployment, :release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are<br class="">currently asking in :the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The<br class="">commitment to anonymity is :also not always clear.<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are<br class="">not :sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead<br class="">to a bias.<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and<br class="">the :user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we<br class="">lose :everything because people bailed out before finishing).<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:Any suggestions on how to proceed ?<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:Tim<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">:_______________________________________________<br class="">:User-committee mailing list<br class="">:User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">--<br class=""></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br class="">User-committee mailing list<br class="">User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 2<br class="">Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:07:54 -0500<br class="">From: Lauren Sell <lauren@openstack.org><br class="">To: "Barrett, Carol L" <carol.l.barrett@intel.com><br class="">Cc: "user-committee@lists.openstack.org"<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><user-committee@lists.openstack.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys<br class="">Message-ID: <200602B5-9714-4244-95C5-183C761F2291@openstack.org><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br class=""><br class="">For this user survey cycle, we offered each PTL the opportunity to add<br class="">one question under the ?current issues? heading, which was intended to<br class="">cover a hot issue or discussion going into the design summit. Ideally,<br class="">the ?current issues? questions do not need to become permanent fixtures<br class="">in the survey for trending over time, and might be swapped out each<br class="">survey cycle. <br class=""><br class="">I would support continuing to include a reasonable number of "current<br class="">issues" questions within the main survey, and then offering an optional<br class="">link or tick box to receive more in-depth questions around a particular<br class="">project or issue. For example, we included a tick box for those who were<br class="">interested in learning more and participating in RefStack this time<br class="">around. Operators (and other types of users) who really care about those<br class="">projects or issues are more likely to participate.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Sep 28, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Barrett, Carol L<br class=""><carol.l.barrett@intel.com> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">I like the idea of having optional sections to the User Survey. I think<br class="">there is per-project info that PTLs are looking for that apply to<br class="">different Operators, so allowing them to choose makes sense.<br class=""><br class="">I would also be interested in including a couple of questions on future<br class="">usage models/capabilities that they don't need today, but can see them<br class="">becoming important over the horizon.<br class=""><br class="">Carol<br class="">-----Original Message-----<br class="">From: Bruno Morel [mailto:bmorel@internap.com]<br class="">Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 12:14 PM<br class="">To: Jonathan Proulx; Tim Bell<br class="">Cc: user-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I agree with Jonathan, in detail :<br class=""><br class="">* making it a regular, scheduled thing : everybody in the community<br class="">would know and expect every 6 month (or 3 month ?) to have the<br class="">opportunity to give feedback, especially if it is pre / post cycle (ex.<br class="">: January -> July -> January ?)<br class="">* Making it a community wide effort and consolidated in one<br class="">?interaction? / survey : having the ability to check/uncheck which<br class="">project you want to give feedback about would be very useful and<br class="">probably help focus each set of question to each project goals / needs<br class="">* A main section would be, in my opinion, the right place to get all<br class="">the general project-independant information we want to gather and any<br class="">related question to the community efforts<br class=""><br class="">Bruno<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 2015-09-28, 15:06, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon@csail.mit.edu> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">I'm thinking we try (next round) to wrap this into the user survey.<br class=""><br class="">If we can organized the PTL surveys as optional and at the end<br class="">hopefully we can retain the short general overview an relatively high<br class="">response.<br class=""><br class="">If the survey is arranged so PTLs can send deeper links to say 'update<br class="">your Neuron usage survey' that go directly to that sub part we may not<br class="">completely solve the survey over load but we can at least eliminate<br class="">the <br class="">duplication and bring all the data under the same privacy model.<br class=""><br class="">I'm thinking an "optional tab" at the end of the survey, after we<br class="">thank <br class="">you for your responses, with a list of links to project specific<br class="">sections.<br class=""><br class="">-Jon<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:03:49PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the<br class="">past :week (Neutron and Ceilometer).<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of<br class="">deployment, :release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are<br class="">currently asking in :the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The<br class="">commitment to anonymity is :also not always clear.<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are<br class="">not :sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead<br class="">to a bias.<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and<br class="">the :user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we<br class="">lose :everything because people bailed out before finishing).<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:Any suggestions on how to proceed ?<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:Tim<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">:_______________________________________________<br class="">:User-committee mailing list<br class="">:User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">--<br class=""></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br class="">User-committee mailing list<br class="">User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">User-committee mailing list<br class="">User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 3<br class="">Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:23:06 +0000<br class="">From: "Kruithof, Piet" <pieter.c.kruithof-jr@hpe.com><br class="">To: "user-committee@lists.openstack.org"<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><user-committee@lists.openstack.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [User-committee] User-committee Digest, Vol 32, Issue 3<br class="">Message-ID: <D22EFB2F.184AE%pieter.c.kruithof-jr@hp.com><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br class=""><br class="">Hi Tim,<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Thanks for addressing some of the potential challenges around conducting<br class="">surveys on behalf of the community.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">The research conducted by the OpenStack UX project, including surveys,<br class="">tend to focus on specific project needs rather than the overall direction<br class="">of the industry, which is captured by the bi-annual survey. The project<br class="">surveys generally require a fair amount of detail in order to enable the<br class="">project teams to make decision around product direction. As a result,<br class="">adding a few questions to the foundation?s survey doesn?t generate the<br class="">level of detail typically needed by each project. Also, any questions<br class="">added<br class="">to the bi-annual survey are at the discretion of the user committee, which<br class="">is a concern for me.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">In addition, waiting for a survey every six months would not allow us to<br class="">be responsive to the project research needs.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I agree with your concern with population fatigue and we would prefer to<br class="">conduct studies with a more focused sample rather than the overall<br class="">OpenStack community. For example, we may specifically focus on network<br class="">admins during one survey while focusing on other roles during another<br class="">study. In those cases, user/operators<br class="">have generally been willing to participate because the results should have<br class="">a tangible impact on their daily activities.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">One recommendation would be to distribute a screener to the overall<br class="">community to identify the specific skills and focus of its members. The<br class="">user committee and project<br class="">teams could use the database created from the screener to identify<br class="">potential participants for the various research activities. The goal<br class="">would be to be more focused on how<br class="">we recruit participants rather than rolling out to the entire community.<br class="">It would also allow us to track and limit how often members are being<br class="">invited to participate in studies to avoid population fatigue. The<br class="">screener would also respondents to opt of<br class="">being recruited for research activities.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">We?ve asked in the past, but the user committee has not been unable to<br class="">provide anonymized data because of a policy within the foundation that<br class="">limits access to data to a handful of users. I don?t dispute the need for<br class="">the policy, but summary statistics aren?t helpful for conducting<br class="">statistical analysis. More recently, we?ve asked for the raw data from<br class="">the operator job analysis survey because of its value in helping to drive<br class="">persona development, but have yet to hear back from the foundation.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Piet<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Piet Kruithof<br class="">Sr UX Architect, HP Helion Cloud<br class="">PTL, OpenStack UX project<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and<br class="">wrong.?<br class=""><br class="">H L Menken<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 9/28/15, 1:14 PM, "user-committee-request@lists.openstack.org"<br class=""><user-committee-request@lists.openstack.org> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Send User-committee mailing list submissions to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>user-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class=""><br class="">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class="">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>user-committee-request@lists.openstack.org<br class=""><br class="">You can reach the person managing the list at<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>user-committee-owner@lists.openstack.org<br class=""><br class="">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br class="">than "Re: Contents of User-committee digest..."<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Today's Topics:<br class=""><br class=""> 1. [ceilometer] OpenStack Telemetry user survey (gord chung)<br class=""> 2. Per-project surveys (Tim Bell)<br class=""> 3. Re: Per-project surveys (Jonathan Proulx)<br class=""> 4. Re: Per-project surveys (Bruno Morel)<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 1<br class="">Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:20:31 -0400<br class="">From: gord chung <gord@live.ca><br class="">To: user-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">Subject: [User-committee] [ceilometer] OpenStack Telemetry user survey<br class="">Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP1679BBE89E1E497D27C2BDDDE4F0@phx.gbl><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed<br class=""><br class="">Hello,<br class=""><br class="">The OpenStack Telemetry (aka Ceilometer) team would like to collect<br class="">feedback and information from its user base in order to drive future<br class="">improvements to the project. To do so, we have developed a survey. It<br class="">should take about 15min to complete.<br class="">Questions are fairly technical, so please ensure that you ask someone<br class="">within your organization that is hands on using Ceilometer.<br class=""><br class="">https://goo.gl/rKNhM1<br class=""><br class="">On behalf of the Ceilometer community, we thank you for the time you<br class="">will spend in helping us understand your needs.<br class=""><br class="">-- <br class="">Gordon Chung<br class="">Ceilometer PTL<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 2<br class="">Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:03:49 +0000<br class="">From: Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch><br class="">To: "user-committee@lists.openstack.org"<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><user-committee@lists.openstack.org><br class="">Subject: [User-committee] Per-project surveys<br class="">Message-ID:<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><5D7F9996EA547448BC6C54C8C5AAF4E5010A478000@CERNXCHG41.cern.ch><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the<br class="">past<br class="">week (Neutron and Ceilometer).<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of<br class="">deployment,<br class="">release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are currently asking<br class="">in<br class="">the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The commitment to anonymity<br class="">is<br class="">also not always clear.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are not<br class="">sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead to a<br class="">bias.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and the<br class="">user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we lose<br class="">everything because people bailed out before finishing).<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Any suggestions on how to proceed ?<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Tim<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">URL: <br class=""><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150928<br class="">/<br class="">4ca53707/attachment-0001.html><br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">Name: smime.p7s<br class="">Type: application/pkcs7-signature<br class="">Size: 7349 bytes<br class="">Desc: not available<br class="">URL: <br class=""><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150928<br class="">/<br class="">4ca53707/attachment-0001.bin><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 3<br class="">Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:06:28 -0400<br class="">From: Jonathan Proulx <jon@csail.mit.edu><br class="">To: Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch><br class="">Cc: "user-committee@lists.openstack.org"<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><user-committee@lists.openstack.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys<br class="">Message-ID: <20150928190628.GL24467@csail.mit.edu><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I'm thinking we try (next round) to wrap this into the user survey.<br class=""><br class="">If we can organized the PTL surveys as optional and at the end<br class="">hopefully we can retain the short general overview an relatively high<br class="">response. <br class=""><br class="">If the survey is arranged so PTLs can send deeper links to say 'update<br class="">your Neuron usage survey' that go directly to that sub part we may not<br class="">completely solve the survey over load but we can at least eliminate<br class="">the duplication and bring all the data under the same privacy model.<br class=""><br class="">I'm thinking an "optional tab" at the end of the survey, after we<br class="">thank you for your responses, with a list of links to project specific<br class="">sections.<br class=""><br class="">-Jon <br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:03:49PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the<br class="">past<br class="">:week (Neutron and Ceilometer).<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of<br class="">deployment,<br class="">:release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are currently<br class="">asking in<br class="">:the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The commitment to<br class="">anonymity is<br class="">:also not always clear.<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are<br class="">not<br class="">:sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead to a<br class="">bias.<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and the<br class="">:user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we lose<br class="">:everything because people bailed out before finishing).<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:Any suggestions on how to proceed ?<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:Tim<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">:_______________________________________________<br class="">:User-committee mailing list<br class="">:User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-- <br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">Name: smime.p7s<br class="">Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature<br class="">Size: 3659 bytes<br class="">Desc: not available<br class="">URL: <br class=""><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150928<br class="">/<br class="">5f7df03d/attachment-0001.bin><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 4<br class="">Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:14:14 +0000<br class="">From: Bruno Morel <bmorel@internap.com><br class="">To: Jonathan Proulx <jon@csail.mit.edu>, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch><br class="">Cc: "user-committee@lists.openstack.org"<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><user-committee@lists.openstack.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [User-committee] Per-project surveys<br class="">Message-ID: <A21C8C21-16BA-47A2-8B53-0B813541125E@internap.com><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I agree with Jonathan, in detail :<br class=""><br class="">* making it a regular, scheduled thing : everybody in the community would<br class="">know and expect every 6 month (or 3 month ?) to have the opportunity to<br class="">give feedback, especially if it is pre / post cycle (ex. : January -><br class="">July -> January ?)<br class="">* Making it a community wide effort and consolidated in one ?interaction?<br class="">/ survey : having the ability to check/uncheck which project you want to<br class="">give feedback about would be very useful and probably help focus each set<br class="">of question to each project goals / needs<br class="">* A main section would be, in my opinion, the right place to get all the<br class="">general project-independant information we want to gather and any related<br class="">question to the community efforts<br class=""><br class="">Bruno<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 2015-09-28, 15:06, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon@csail.mit.edu> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">I'm thinking we try (next round) to wrap this into the user survey.<br class=""><br class="">If we can organized the PTL surveys as optional and at the end<br class="">hopefully we can retain the short general overview an relatively high<br class="">response. <br class=""><br class="">If the survey is arranged so PTLs can send deeper links to say 'update<br class="">your Neuron usage survey' that go directly to that sub part we may not<br class="">completely solve the survey over load but we can at least eliminate<br class="">the duplication and bring all the data under the same privacy model.<br class=""><br class="">I'm thinking an "optional tab" at the end of the survey, after we<br class="">thank you for your responses, with a list of links to project specific<br class="">sections.<br class=""><br class="">-Jon <br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:03:49PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:There have been a couple of project surveys of OpenStack users in the<br class="">past<br class="">:week (Neutron and Ceilometer).<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:They tend to duplicate the standard questions (industry, size of<br class="">deployment,<br class="">:release levels, .) and also some of the questions we are currently<br class="">asking in<br class="">:the survey (nova network, metering feedback). The commitment to<br class="">anonymity is<br class="">:also not always clear.<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:The difficulty I see is that we reach survey limits, where people are<br class="">not<br class="">:sure what is official and whether the questions/audience may lead to a<br class="">bias.<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:On the other hand, the PTLs often want more detailed information and<br class="">the<br class="">:user survey needs to be kept to a reasonable length (to avoid we lose<br class="">:everything because people bailed out before finishing).<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:Any suggestions on how to proceed ?<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class="">:Tim<br class="">:<br class="">: <br class="">:<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">:_______________________________________________<br class="">:User-committee mailing list<br class="">:User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-- <br class=""></blockquote><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">User-committee mailing list<br class="">User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">End of User-committee Digest, Vol 32, Issue 3<br class="">*********************************************<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">Name: default[1].xml<br class="">Type: application/xml<br class="">Size: 3222 bytes<br class="">Desc: default[1].xml<br class="">URL: <br class=""><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20150928/<br class="">c8b87b75/attachment.xml><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">User-committee mailing list<br class="">User-committee@lists.openstack.org<br class="">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">End of User-committee Digest, Vol 32, Issue 4<br class="">*********************************************<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><span id="cid:5C5E288E577E1542A5EA51BF19E41948@Compaq.com"><default.xml></span>_______________________________________________<br class="">User-committee mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:User-committee@lists.openstack.org" class="">User-committee@lists.openstack.org</a><br class="">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>