[openstack-dev] Vancouver Design Summit format changes

Tom Fifield tom at openstack.org
Mon Jan 12 05:08:51 UTC 2015

On 10/01/15 03:26, Michael Dorman wrote:
> (X-posted to -operators.)
> Any thoughts on how the ops track spaces would be requested, since there 
> is not a real ‘operators project’, PTL, etc.?

Based on our past events and summit survey feedback from Paris, I've
mentioned to Thierry that we probably need at least:

3 large rooms * 1 day's worth of slots each (for general sessions)
3 small rooms * 1 day's worth of slots each (for working groups)

The content for these should, as Tim mentions, be chosen by discussion.
Previously, etherpad and ops-ml has worked well for us, but open to
other ideas!

In terms of the actual scheduling, I think it makes sense to have the
'general sessions' scheduled in a block so you can find them easily and
just stay there all day. The working group sessions are probably of more
specialised interest and distributing them throughout the week could
actually help people get to more of them compared to running them in
parallel as we did in Paris.

> I assume this would come from the operators group as a whole, so probably 
> something we should put on the agenda at the ops meet up in March.  (I’ve 
> added it to the etherpad.)
> Mike
> On 1/9/15, 2:50 PM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> sessions:
>> * 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
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list