Open Stack

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Let me try to say it another way.  You seemed to say that it wasn't much
>> to ask given the rate at which things happen in OpenStack.  I would
>> argue that given the rate, we should not try to ask more of individuals
>> (like this proposal) and risk burnout.  Instead, we should be doing our
>> best to be more open an inclusive to give the project the best chance to
>> grow, as that's the best way to get more done.
>>
>> I think an increased travel expectation is a raised bar that will hinder
>> team growth, not help it.
> 
> +1, well said.

Sorry, I was away for a few days. This is a topic I have a few strong
opinions on :)

There is no denial that the meetup format is working well, comparatively
better than the design summit format. There is also no denial that that
requiring 4 travels per year for a "core" dev is unreasonable. Where is
the limit ? Wouldn't we be more productive and aligned if we did one per
month ? No, the question is how to reach a sufficient level of focus and
alignment while keeping the number of "mandatory" travel at 2 per year.

I don't think our issue comes from not having enough F2F time. Our issue
is that the design summit no longer reaches its objectives of aligning
key contributors on a common plan, and we need to fix it.

We established the design summit as the once-per-cycle opportunity to
have face-to-face time and get alignment across the main contributors to
a project. That used to be completely sufficient, but now it doesn't
work as well... which resulted in alignment and team discussions to be
discussed at mid-cycle meetups instead. Why ? And what could we change
to have those alignment discussions at the design summit again ?

Why are design summits less productive that mid-cycle meetups those days
? Is it because there are too many non-contributors in the design summit
rooms ? Is it the 40-min format ? Is it the distractions (having talks
to give somewhere else, booths to attend, parties and dinners to be at)
? Is it that beginning of cycle is not the best moment ? Once we know
WHY the design summit fails its main objective, maybe we can fix it.

My gut feeling is that having a restricted audience and a smaller group
lets people get to the bottom of an issue and reach consensus. And that
you need at least half a day or a full day of open discussion to reach
such alignment. And that it's not particularly great to get such
alignment in the middle of the cycle, getting it at the start is still
the right way to align with the release cycle.

Nothing prevents us from changing part of the design summit format (even
the Paris one!), and restrict attendance to some of the sessions. And if
the main issue is the distraction from the conference colocation, we
might have to discuss the future of co-location again. In that "2 events
per year" objective, we could make the conference the optional cycle
thing, and a developer-oriented specific event the mandatory one.

If we manage to have alignment at the "design summit", then it doesn't
spell the end of the mid-cycle things. But then, ideally the extra
mid-cycle gatherings should be focused on getting specific stuff done,
rather than general team alignment. Think workshop/hackathon rather than
private gathering. The goal of the workshop would be published in
advance, and people could opt to join that. It would be totally optional.

Cheers,

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)