Open Stack

Hey everyone,

Now that the thread has had enough time for people to reply it appears that the majority of people that vocalized their opinion are in favor of a mini-summit, preferably to occur in Atlanta days before the Openstack summit. There are concerns however, most notably the concern that the mini-summit is not 100% inclusive (this seems to imply that other mini-summits are not 100% inclusive). Furthermore, there seems to be a concern about timing. I am relatively new to Openstack processes so I want to make sure I am following them. In this case, does majority vote win? If so, I'd like to further this discussion into actually planning a mini-summit. Thoughts?

Cheers,
--Jorge

From: Mike Wilson <geekinutah at gmail.com<mailto:geekinutah at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:57 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Mini-summit Interest?

Hangouts  worked well at the nova mid-cycle meetup. Just make sure you have your network situation sorted out before hand. Bandwidth and firewalls are what comes to mind immediately.

-Mike


On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tom Creighton <tom.creighton at rackspace.com<mailto:tom.creighton at rackspace.com>> wrote:
When the Designate team had their mini-summit, they had an open Google Hangout for remote participants.  We could even have an open conference bridge if you are not partial to video conferencing.  With the issue of inclusion solved, let’s focus on a date that is good for the team!

Cheers,

Tom Creighton


On Mar 10, 2014, at 4:10 PM, Edgar Magana <emagana at plumgrid.com<mailto:emagana at plumgrid.com>> wrote:

> Eugene,
>
> A have a few arguments why I believe this is not 100% inclusive
>       • Is the foundation involved on this process? How? What is the budget? Who is the responsible from the foundation  side?
>       • If somebody made already travel arraignments, it won't be possible to make changes at not cost.
>       • Staying extra days in a different city could impact anyone's budget
>       • As a OpenStack developer. I want to understand why the summit is not enough for deciding the next steps for each project. If that is the case, I would prefer to make changes on the organization of the summit instead of creating mini-summits all around!
> I could continue but I think these are good enough.
>
> I could agree with your point about previous summits being distractive for developers, this is why this time the OpenStack foundation is trying very hard to allocate specific days for the conference and specific days for the summit.
> The point that I am totally agree with you is that we SHOULD NOT have session about work that will be done no matter what!  Those are just a waste of good time that could be invested in very interesting discussions about topics that are still not clear.
> I would recommend that you express this opinion to Mark. He is the right guy to decide which sessions will bring interesting discussions and which ones will be just a declaration of intents.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edgar
>
> From: Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com<mailto:enikanorov at mirantis.com>>
> Reply-To: OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Date: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:32 AM
> To: OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Mini-summit Interest?
>
> Hi Edgar,
>
> I'm neutral to the suggestion of mini summit at this point.
> Why do you think it will exclude developers?
> If we keep it 1-3 days prior to OS Summit in Atlanta (e.g. in the same city) that would allow anyone who joins OS Summit to save on extra travelling.
> OS Summit itself is too distractive to have really productive discussions, unless your missing the sessions and spend time discussing.
> For instance design sessions basically only good for declaration of intents, but not for real discussion of a complex topic at meaningful detail level.
>
> What would be your suggestions to make this more inclusive?
> I think the time and place is the key here - hence Atlanta and few days prior OS summit.
>
> Thanks,
> Eugene.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Edgar Magana <emagana at plumgrid.com<mailto:emagana at plumgrid.com>> wrote:
>> Team,
>>
>> I found that having a mini-summit with a very short notice means excluding
>> a lot of developers of such an interesting topic for Neutron.
>> The OpenStack summit is the opportunity for all developers to come
>> together and discuss the next steps, there are many developers that CAN
>> NOT afford another trip for a "special" summit. I am personally against
>> that and I do support Mark's proposal of having all the conversation over
>> IRC and mailing list.
>>
>> Please, do not start excluding people that won't be able to attend another
>> face-to-face meeting besides the summit. I believe that these are the
>> little things that make an open source community weak if we do not control
>> it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>> On 3/6/14 9:51 PM, "Mark McClain" <mmcclain at yahoo-inc.com<mailto:mmcclain at yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On Mar 6, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com<mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:14 +0000, Youcef Laribi wrote:
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>> I think if we can have it before the Juno summit, we can take
>> >>> concrete, well thought-out proposals to the community at the summit.
>> >>
>> >> Unless something has changed starting at the Hong Kong design summit
>> >> (which unfortunately I was not able to attend), the design summits have
>> >> always been a place to gather to *discuss* and *debate* proposed
>> >> blueprints and design specs. It has never been about a gathering to
>> >> rubber-stamp proposals that have already been hashed out in private
>> >> somewhere else.
>> >
>> >You are correct that is the goal of the design summit.  While I do think
>> >it is wise to discuss the next steps with LBaaS at this point in time, I
>> >am not a proponent of in person mini-design summits.  Many contributors
>> >to LBaaS are distributed all over the global, and scheduling a mini
>> >summit with short notice will exclude valuable contributors to the team.
>> >I¹d prefer to see an open process with discussions on the mailing list
>> >and specially scheduled IRC meetings to discuss the ideas.
>> >
>> >mark
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20140313/8c6fd7bb/attachment.html>