[openstack-dev] Vancouver Design Summit format changes
seanroberts66 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 9 17:06:07 UTC 2015
I like it. Thank you for coming up with improvements to the
summit planning. One caveat on the definition of project for summit
space. Which projects get considered for space is always difficult. Who is
going to fill the rooms they request or are they going to have them mostly
empty? I'm sure the TC can figure it out by looking at the number of
contributors or something like that. I would however, like to know a bit
more of your plan for this specific part of the proposal sooner than
On Friday, January 9, 2015, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org
> Hi everyone,
> The OpenStack Foundation staff is considering a number of changes to the
> Design Summit format for Vancouver, changes on which we'd very much like
> to hear your feedback.
> The problems we are trying to solve are the following:
> - Accommodate the needs of more "OpenStack projects"
> - Reduce separation and perceived differences between the Ops Summit and
> the Design/Dev Summit
> - Create calm and less-crowded spaces for teams to gather and get more
> work done
> While some sessions benefit from large exposure, loads of feedback and
> large rooms, some others are just workgroup-oriented work sessions that
> benefit from smaller rooms, less exposure and more whiteboards. Smaller
> rooms are also cheaper space-wise, so they allow us to scale more easily
> to a higher number of "OpenStack projects".
> My proposal is the following. Each project team would have a track at
> the Design Summit. Ops feedback is in my opinion part of the design of
> OpenStack, so the Ops Summit would become a track within the
> forward-looking "Design Summit". Tracks may use two separate types of
> * Fishbowl sessions
> Those sessions are for open discussions where a lot of participation and
> feedback is desirable. Those would happen in large rooms (100 to 300
> people, organized in fishbowl style with a projector). Those would have
> catchy titles and appear on the general Design Summit schedule. We would
> have space for 6 or 7 of those in parallel during the first 3 days of
> the Design Summit (we would not run them on Friday, to reproduce the
> successful Friday format we had in Paris).
> * Working sessions
> Those sessions are for a smaller group of contributors to get specific
> work done or prioritized. Those would happen in smaller rooms (20 to 40
> people, organized in boardroom style with loads of whiteboards). Those
> would have a blanket title (like "infra team working session") and
> redirect to an etherpad for more precise and current content, which
> should limit out-of-team participation. Those would replace "project
> pods". We would have space for 10 to 12 of those in parallel for the
> first 3 days, and 18 to 20 of those in parallel on the Friday (by
> reusing fishbowl rooms).
> Each project track would request some mix of sessions ("We'd like 4
> fishbowl sessions, 8 working sessions on Tue-Thu + half a day on
> Friday") and the TC would arbitrate how to allocate the limited
> resources. Agenda for the fishbowl sessions would need to be published
> in advance, but agenda for the working sessions could be decided
> dynamically from an etherpad agenda.
> By making larger use of smaller spaces, we expect that setup to let us
> accommodate the needs of more projects. By merging the two separate Ops
> Summit and Design Summit events, it should make the Ops feedback an
> integral part of the Design process rather than a second-class citizen.
> By creating separate working session rooms, we hope to evolve the "pod"
> concept into something where it's easier for teams to get work done
> (less noise, more whiteboards, clearer agenda).
> What do you think ? Could that work ? If not, do you have alternate
> suggestions ?
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev