Open Stack

On 09/17/2014 04:01 PM, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
> This looks great - but I am afraid that something might be missing.
> 
> As part of the Design summit in Atlanta there was an Ops Meetup track.
> [1] I do not see where this fits into the current planning process that
> has been posted.
> I would like to assume that part of the purpose of the summit is to also
> collect feedback from Enterprise Operators and also from smaller ones as
> well.
> 
> If that is so then I would kindly request that there be some other way
> of allowing that part of the community to voice their concerns, and
> provide feedback.
> 
> Perhaps a track that is not only Operator centric - but also an End-user
> focused one as well (mixing the two would be fine as well)
> 
> Most of them are not on the openstack-dev list and they do not
> participate in the IRC team meetings, simply because they have no idea
> that these exist or maybe do not feel comfortable there. So they will
> not have any exposure to the process.
> 
> My 0.02 Shekels.
> 
> [1] - http://junodesignsummit.sched.org/overview/type/ops+meetup
> 
Hi Maish:

This thread is about the Design Summit, the Operators Track is a
different thing.

In Atlanta the Operators Track was organized by Tom Fifield and I have
every confidence he is working hard to ensure the operators have a voice
in Paris and that those interested can participate.

Last summit the Operators Track ran on the Monday and the Friday giving
folks who usually spend most of the time at the Design summit to
participate and hear the operator's voices. I know I did and I found it
highly educational.

Thanks,
Anita.

> 
> 
> On 12/09/2014 18:42, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>> If you think this is wrong and think the "design summit suggestion"
>>>> website is a better way to do it, let me know why! If some programs
>>>> really can't stand the 'etherpad/IRC' approach I'll see how we can spin
>>>> up a limited instance.
>>> +1 on a collaborative scheduling process within each project.
>>>
>>> That's pretty much what we did within the ceilometer core group for
>>> the Juno summit, except that we used a googledocs spreadsheet instead
>>> of an etherpad.
>>>
>>> So I don't think we need to necessarily mandate usage of an etherpad,
>>> just let every project decide whatever shared document format they
>>> want to use.
>>>
>>> FTR the benefit of a googledocs spreadsheet in my view would include
>>> the ease of totalling votes & sessions slots, color-coding candidate
>>> sessions for merging etc.
>> Good point. I've replaced the wording in the wiki page -- just use
>> whatever suits you best, as long as it's a public document and you can
>> link to it.
>>
>