Open Stack

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info> wrote:

> On 08/27/2014 02:46 PM, John Griffith wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/27/2014 03:26 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> >>> On 08/27/2014 08:51 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been thinking about what changes we can bring to the Design
> Summit
> >>>> format to make it more productive. I've heard the feedback from the
> >>>> mid-cycle meetups and would like to apply some of those ideas for
> Paris,
> >>>> within the constraints we have (already booked space and time). Here
> is
> >>>> something we could do:
> >>>>
> >>>> Day 1. Cross-project sessions / incubated projects / other projects
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that worked well last time. 3 parallel rooms where we can
> >>>> address top cross-project questions, discuss the results of the
> various
> >>>> experiments we conducted during juno. Don't hesitate to schedule 2
> slots
> >>>> for discussions, so that we have time to come to the bottom of those
> >>>> issues. Incubated projects (and maybe "other" projects, if space
> allows)
> >>>> occupy the remaining space on day 1, and could occupy "pods" on the
> >>>> other days.
> >>>>
> >>>> Day 2 and Day 3. Scheduled sessions for various programs
> >>>>
> >>>> That's our traditional scheduled space. We'll have a 33% less slots
> >>>> available. So, rather than trying to cover all the scope, the idea
> would
> >>>> be to focus those sessions on specific issues which really require
> >>>> face-to-face discussion (which can't be solved on the ML or using spec
> >>>> discussion) *or* require a lot of user feedback. That way, appearing
> in
> >>>> the general schedule is very helpful. This will require us to be a lot
> >>>> stricter on what we accept there and what we don't -- we won't have
> >>>> space for courtesy sessions anymore, and traditional/unnecessary
> >>>> sessions (like my traditional "release schedule" one) should just move
> >>>> to the mailing-list.
> >>>>
> >>>> Day 4. Contributors meetups
> >>>>
> >>>> On the last day, we could try to split the space so that we can
> conduct
> >>>> parallel midcycle-meetup-like contributors gatherings, with no time
> >>>> boundaries and an open agenda. Large projects could get a full day,
> >>>> smaller projects would get half a day (but could continue the
> discussion
> >>>> in a local bar). Ideally that meetup would end with some alignment on
> >>>> release goals, but the idea is to make the best of that time together
> to
> >>>> solve the issues you have. Friday would finish with the design summit
> >>>> feedback session, for those who are still around.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this proposal makes the best use of our setup: discuss clear
> >>>> cross-project issues, address key specific topics which need
> >>>> face-to-face time and broader attendance, then try to replicate the
> >>>> success of midcycle meetup-like open unscheduled time to discuss
> >>>> whatever is hot at this point.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are still details to work out (is it possible split the space,
> >>>> should we use the usual design summit CFP website to organize the
> >>>> "scheduled" time...), but I would first like to have your feedback on
> >>>> this format. Also if you have alternative proposals that would make a
> >>>> better use of our 4 days, let me know.
> >>>
> >>> I definitely like this approach. I think it will be really interesting
> >>> to collect feedback from people about the value they got from days 2 &
> 3
> >>> vs. Day 4.
> >>>
> >>> I also wonder if we should lose a slot from days 1 - 3 and expand the
> >>> hallway time. Hallway track is always pretty interesting, and honestly
> >>> at a lot of interesting ideas spring up. The 10 minute transitions
> often
> >>> seem to feel like you are rushing between places too quickly some
> times.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Last summit, it was basically impossible to do any hallway talking and
> >> even meet some folks face-2-face.
> >>
> >> Other than that, I think the proposal is great and makes sense to me.
> >>
> >> Flavio
> >>
> >> --
> >> @flaper87
> >> Flavio Percoco
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> > ​Sounds like a great idea to me:
> > +1​
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> I think this is a great direction.
>
> Here is my dilemma and it might just affect me. I attended 3 mid-cycles
> this release: one of Neutron's (there were 2), QA/Infra and Cinder. The
> Neutron and Cinder ones were mostly in pursuit of figuring out third
> party and exchanging information surrounding that (which I feel was
> successful). The QA/Infra one was, well even though I feel like I have
> been awol, I still consider this my home.
>
> From my perspective and check with Neutron and Cinder to see if they
> agree, but having at least one person from qa/infra at a mid-cycle helps
> in small ways. At both I worked with folks to help them make more
> efficient use of their review time by exploring gerrit queries (there
> were people who didn't know this magic, nor did they think to ask until
> they saw some dashboards), at Neutron I gave my impromtu
> this-is-how-infra-testing-works in terms of the moving parts, and
> fortunately managed to work in a
> how-to-submit-an-elastic-recheck-fingerprint as well at the Neutron
> mid-cycle.
>
> I don't expect to be able to do all these kind of things at summit, but
> I do think they are valuable.
>
> So my dilemma is on day 4 which room do I choose? I'll feel pulled in
> multiple directions and am uncertain how to select, whatever choice I
> make I will miss out on valuable discussions.
>
> Like I said, probably just my problem, but for me it exists.
>

​I think this problem exists for multiple people, no doubt about it.  The
problem is the model of trying to schedule things in a more "serial"
fashion quite simply doesn't scale.

Honestly when it comes to things like third-party CI etc, I'd think that
would be one of those fantastic cross-project sessions.  I also am trying
to be optimistic in thinking that we're making progress on that topic and
hopefully it won't be such a major topic of discussion before too long.
 After all, I know myself and others would really like to be spending our
time on our projects again as opposed to trying to navigate setting up and
maintaining CI systems in our own labs.
​


>
> Thanks,
> Anita.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140827/b426e28a/attachment.html>